Columbia  ®nit)twitp 
intlifCttpofStttigork 

THE  LIBRARIES 


Bequest  of 
Frederic  Bancroft 


1860-1945 


^^/^^n^a^^A^    /Zwu^dM>.^ 


ffi^^x 


MEMOIR 


OF 


BISHOP  SEABURY 


BY 


WILLIAM  JONES  SEABURY,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL    POLITY  AND  LAW  IN  THE  GENERAL 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  NEW  YORK 


NEW  YORK 

EDWIN  S.  GORHAM,  PUBLISHER 

251  Fourth  Avenue,  Cor.  Twentieth  Street 

LONDON 

RIVINGTONS 

34  King  Street,  Covent  Garden 

1908 


6/.  /^ 


Copyright,  1908, 
William  J.  Seabury 


( 

LD 

un 

CD 

'•4J 

\n 

^ 

ca 

^ 

'^ 

'^ 

l^ 

^ 

-^ 

PREFACE. 

THE  life  of  Bishop  Seabury  published  by  Dr.  Beardsley 
in  1881,  gives  the  only  extended  account  of  him 
which  has  yet  appeared;  although  there  have  been 
very  many  commemorations  of  him  in  casual,  and  therefore 
in  some  sense  ephemeral  publications,  some  of  which,  never- 
theless, have  been  of  great  and  permanent  value.  Notwith- 
standing, however,  the  undoubted  excellence  and  faithfulness 
of  Dr.  Beardsley 's  book,  it  has  seemed  to  many  that  it  was 
not  in  all  respects  such  as  to  preclude  the  usefulness  of  another 
treatment  of  the  subject;  for  which,  indeed,  there  has  of  late 
been  all  the  greater  need  from  the  fact  that  Dr.  Beardsley 's 
book  has  been  long  since  out  of  print.  These  considerations, 
and  the  urgency  of  some  whose  wishes  could  not  be  other 
than  influential  with  me,  have  led  me  to  undertake  the  present 
Memoir. 

Now  that  it  is  completed  I  am  conscious  that  the  Memoir 
has  not  accomplished  all  that  I  could  have  wished,  nor  all 
that  is  due  to  the  subject  of  it.  In  the  marshalling  of  the 
materials  at  my  disposal  I  have  often  been  deeply  impressed 
with  the  value  of  what  I  could  not  possibly  use  without  ex- 
tending the  book  beyond  readable  limits;  and  I  confess  that 
what  I  have  proposed  to  myself  has  been  above  all  to  give  such 
an  account  of  Bishop  Seabury  as  should  at  least  be  readable, 
and  thus  tend  to  promote  the  more  general  knowledge  of  a  man 
really  worth  knowing.  How  to  do  this,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  treat  fully  and  fairly  those  grave  topics  and  important  prin- 
ciples without  the  understanding  of  which  the  subject  of  the 
Memoir  could  not  be  understood,  has  been  the  problem  which 

V 


VI  PREFACE. 

I  have  tried  to  solve.  Whether  I  have  succeeded  in  this  effort 
the  reader  will,  of  course,  judge  fur  himself,  but  my  aim  has 
been  to  keep  the  life  of  the  man  always  in  view,  so  that  the 
story  might  have  a  personal  interest  which  would  add  some 
zest  to  the  treatment  of  the  more  abstract  matters  which  were 
necessary  to  be  considered. 

In  the  performance  of  my  work  I  have  had  the  benefit  of 
the  traditions  imparted  to  me  by  my  father,  Dr.  Samuel 
Seabury ;  and,  as  a  part  of  these,  of  the  considerable  collection 
of  papers  inherited  or  gathered  by  him,  and  also  of  memoranda 
made  by  him,  relating  to  the  earlier  part  of  the  life  of  his 
grandfather,  which  it  was  always  his  purpose  to  complete,  but 
which,  unfortunately,  he  did  not  live  to  accomplish.  I  am 
greatly  indebted  to  my  brother,  the  Rev^.  Henry  Ainsworth 
Parker,  of  Massachusetts,  for  an  arrangement  and  classifica- 
tion of  the  collection  of  papers  referred  to,  without  which  it 
would  have  been  next  to  impossible  for  me  to  utilize  them.  I 
have  also  been  indebted  to  him,  and  to  the  Rev^.  Joseph 
Hooper,  of  Connecticut,  for  several  valuable  additions  to  my 
stock  of  material. 

My  many  obligations  to  various  writers  are,  of  course,  noted 
in  the  text;  but  I  ought,  I  think,  to  express  my  particular 
sense  of  the  benefit  of  having  had  Dr.  Beardsley's  treatment 
of  the  subject  before  me;  and  of  having  had  also  the  knowl- 
edge of  those  invaluable  Memoirs,  for  which  the  Church  in 
this  country  is  profoundly  indebted  to  the  venerable  Bishop 
White.  No  one  can  know  the  history  of  that  Church  with- 
out knowing  Bishop  White's  Memoirs;  and  to  the  knowledge 
of  Bishop  Seabury  they  largely  contribute,  describing  him  and 
his  position  not  only  with  great  fairness,  but  with  an  affec- 
tionate appreciation  which  is  truly  gratifying. 

As  to  the  need,  or  usefulness,  of  a  work  of  this  kind  there 
may  perhaps  be  a  difference  of  opinion.  M}''  own  feeling,  of 
course,  is  that  there  is  much  in  the  life  of  the  subject  of  this 


PREFACE.  Vll 

Memoir  which  may  profitably  be  considered  and  applied  by 
anyone  who  is  open  to  the  influence  of  salutary  personal 
example.  But  apart  from  that,  I  am  disposed  to  think  it  a 
very  wholesome  thing  to  import  into  the  consideration  of  the 
existing  order  of  things  in  Church  and  State,  the  contempla- 
tion of  a  life  which  may  be  regarded  as  a  fair  exponent  of 
principles  recognized  as  fundamental  in  those  Institutions  at 
the  time  of  their  original  establishment  in  this  country.  If 
the  work  shall  prove  in  any  degree  serviceable  in  promoting 
the  better  appreciation  of  these  principles,  it  will  not  be  with- 
out a  usefulness  to  which  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  contributed. 

W.  J.  s. 

8  Chelsea  Square,  New  York,  1908. 


MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

CHAPTER  I. 
EARLY  YEARS,  AND  ORDINATION. 

1729-1753. 

THE  story  of  Bishop  Seabury  seems,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  survival  of  materials  out  of  which  it  can 
be  constructed,  to  begin  soon  after  the  completion 
of  his  college  course  at  Yale  in  1748,  v^^hile  he  v^as  in  the 
nineteenth  year  of  his  age.  For  the  answer  to  questions  of 
interest  as  to  the  influences  under  which  he  grew  up,  we  are 
thus  left  somewhat  to  our  imagination.  We  are  not,  however, 
altogether  without  facts  on  which  it  is  safe  to  encourage  the 
imagination  to  work.  The  character  of  his  father,  the  Rev^. 
Samuel  Seabury,  M.  A.,  seems  to  have  been  such  as  to  entitle 
him  to  universal  respect,  and  to  make  him  especially  fitted  to 
influence  the  son.  From  his  mother,  all  that  the  Bishop  could 
have  derived  must  have  been  by  inheritance  rather  than  by 
personal  influence.  Abigail  Mumford,  his  father's  first  wife, 
died  in  1730,  or  173 1,  after  a  married  life  of  about  four  years, 
during  which  she  had  given  birth  to  two  sons  —  Caleb,  born 
February  2^],  1728,  and  Samuel,  the  subject  of  the  present 
Memoir,  born  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Andrew  (November  30), 
1729.  She  was  the  daughter  of  that  Thomas  Mumford  who 
was  Warden  of  the  Church  of  St.  James,  New  London,  of 
which  her  husband  was  the  first  Rector,  and  who  belonged  to 


2  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

a  family  of  some  eminence  in  the  history  of  the  Colonies  of 
Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut.  This  family  was  connected 
with  the  Church  of  England ;  while  the  colonial  line  of  Sea- 
bury,  down  to  the  date  of  the  conformity  and  ordination  of 
the  Bishop's  father  (1731),  seems  to  afford  no  instance  of 
any  but  the  staunchest  Puritans  of  the  Congregational  type. 
The  blending  is  not  without  its  significance  in  this  connection, 
but  it  need  not  now  be  dwelt  upon. 

All  of  maternal  influence  that  the  Bishop  could  have  been 
conscious  of  was  derived  from  the  second  wife  of  his  father, 
who  was  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Adam  Powell,  and  grand- 
daughter of  Gabriel  Bernon  of  Rhode  Island.  Of  this  mar- 
riage there  were  three  sons,  Adam,  Nathaniel  and  David ;  and 
two  daughters,  Jane,  and  Elizabeth  Powell  who  became  the 
wife  of  Dr.  Benjamin  Tredwell  of  Hempstead. 

A  youth  spent  amidst  such  associations  as  are  thus  indi- 
cated, in  a  well  ordered  Christian  and  Churchly  home;  with 
the  best  influences  of  parental  example  and  guidance,  and  the 
affectionate  intercourse  of  brothers  and  sisters  in  a  loving 
family  life,  was  certainly  a  good  preparation  for  a  useful  man- 
hood. 

The  Bishop  was  born  at  Groton,  a  place  on  the  Thames 
river,  opposite  New  London,  in  Connecticut.  His  father  was, 
at  the  time  of  the  birth,  still  acting  as  a  licensed  preacher 
among  the  Congregationalists  in  Groton,  not  having  as  yet 
conformed  to  the  Church  of  England.  It  was  natural,  under 
these  circumstances,  that  the  child  should  be  baptized  by  a 
Congregationalist  Minister.  The  record  of  the  Congregational 
Society  in  Groton  is,  "  Samuel  son  of  Samuel  and  Abigail  Sea- 
bury  baptized  14  Dec.  1729  by  Rev.  John  Owen," — the  said 
John  Owen  being  the  Congregationalist  Minister  in  South 
Groton.^ 

I.  Ms.  letter  of  Rev.  Dr.  T.  W.  Coit  to  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury  of 
April  3,  1851,  and  cf.  Caulkins'  History  of  New  London. 


EARLY   YEARS,   AND   ORDINATION.  3 

The  ground  taken  by  the  recipient  of  this  baptism  in  his 
later  Hfe,  as  to  the  invahdity  of  baptism  without  authority 
derived  in  due  succession  from  the  Apostles,  upon  whom  only 
it  had  been  originally  conferred  by  Christ,"  renders  it  more 
than  probable  that  he  was  afterward  baptized  by  a  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  possible  that  his  father  per- 
formed the  ceremony  after  returning  from  ordination  in  Eng- 
land: but,  so  far  as  has  yet  appeared,  there  is  no  record  or 
other  direct  evidence  of  any  such  baptism. 

The  elder  Samuel  Seabury,  the  father  of  the  Bishop,  was,  on 
his  return  from  England,  settled  in  charge  of  St.  James' 
Church,  New  London,  and  to  this  place  he  transferred  his 
residence ;  continuing  there  until  his  removal  to  Hempstead  in 
1742.  The  boyhood  of  the  Bishop  until  his  thirteenth  year 
would  thus  appear  to  have  been  spent  in  New  London.  At 
Hempstead  he  completed,  probably  under  the  tuition  of  his 
father,  his  preparation  for  Yale  College,  which  he  entered  in 
1744,  graduating  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1748.  From  this  col- 
lege he  afterward  received  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts, 
which  degree  was  also  conferred  upon  him  at  a  later  period 
by  King's  College  in  New  York. 

The  only  tale  which  appears  to  have  survived  in  regard  to 
the  Bishop's  boyhood,  is  that  being  once  sent  by  his  father  to 
drive  some  cows  out  of  the  garden,  he  threw  a  stone  which 
struck  one  of  them  with  such  force  as  almost  to  cause  her 
death  —  an  incident  which  served  as  a  caution  to  him  to  use 
his  uncommon  strength  with  more  moderation  in  future. 
Soon  after  his  graduation  he  was  appointed  by  the  English 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts  to 
serve  as  a  Catechist  at  Huntington,  a  station  within  the  cure  of 
his  father,  and  some  twenty  miles  distant  from  Hempstead. 

The  stipend  of  £10  per  annum,  which  he  received  from  the 

2.  Bp.  Seabury's  Sermons,  I.  pp.  97-99  and  183.     Ed.  1793. 


4  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

Society  with  this  appointment,  enabled  him  to  reside  at  his 
home  in  Hempstead  without  being  burdensome  to  his  father. 
He  rehnquishod  this  appointment  in  1752;  and  during  the 
three  or  four  years  in  which  he  held  it,  all  the  time  which  he 
could  spare  from  its  duties  he  used  for  the  study  of  Medicine 
and  of  Theology.  His  father  had  applied  himself  to  the  study 
of  Medicine  in  order  to  minister  to  the  bodily  as  well  as  to 
the  spiritual  needs  of  his  parishioners;  and  he  himself  was 
probably  at  first  led  to  the  study  from  the  same  desire  to 
make  it  auxiliary  to  the  missionary  labours  to  which  he  pur- 
posed to  devote  his  life.  But  he  lacked,  upon  the  completion 
of  his  college  course,  some  five  or  six  years  of  the  age  at 
which  he  could  be  admitted  to  priest's  orders;  and  as  he 
could  not  well  take  the  double  journey  to  England,  first  for 
deacon's  orders  at  twenty-one,  and  then  for  priest's  orders  at 
twenty- four ;  and  as  he  appears  from  the  beginning,  as  well  as 
throughout  his  life,  to  have  been  of  a  very  practical  turn  of 
mind,  it  was  most  natural  that  while  he  was  steadily  pursuing 
his  theological  studies,  and  at  the  same  time  gaining  experi- 
ence in  the  exercise  of  his  function  as  a  Catechist,  he  should 
also  be  disposed  to  supplement  his  study  of  the  theory  of 
medicine  by  medical  practice  as  occasion  afforded  opportunity. 
His  course  in  this  respect,  however,  in  no  way  interfered 
with  his  theological  studies,  which  he  continued  to  pursue 
with  his  father  until  1752  when  he  set  out  for  his  ordination 
in  England.  It  appears  from  the  letter  of  introduction  which 
his  father  gave  him  to  the  Bishop  of  London  that,  as  he 
would  not  attain  the  age  requisite  for  Priest's  Orders  until 
1753,  it  had  been  determined  that  he  should  spend  a  year  at 
the  University  of  Edinburgh  "  in  studying  physic  and  anat- 
omy," before  going  to  London  for  ordination ;  and  the  year 
1752-3  was  accordingly  spent  by  him  in  diligent  attendance 
upon  the  lectures  of  professors  eminent  in  that  day  at  that 
University. 


EARLY   YEARS,    AND   ORDINATION.  5 

It  is  related  that  while  he  was  a  student  in  Edinburgh,  as 
he  was  walking  one  day  along  the  street,  his  attention  being 
suddenly  aroused  by  shouts  of  excited  spectators,  he  saw  rush- 
ing toward  him  in  full  career  a  horse,  bearing  a  lady  whose 
power  of  control  seemed  to  be  exhausted,  and  whose  danger 
was  obvious  and  imminent.  This  situation  the  young  man, 
with  mingled  activity,  strength  and  skill,  instantly  changed; 
and  with  a  dextrous  grasp,  and  masterfully  firm  hold  of  the 
bridle,  he  so  steadily  checked  the  progress  of  the  steed  as  not 
to  unseat  the  rider.  It  is  manifest  that  this  anecdote  is 
charged  with  romantic  possibilities;  which,  however,  one 
grieves  to  record  were  not  realized.  For  though  the  father, 
outstripped  in  the  race,  came  soon  upon  the  scene,  and  both 
the  gentleman  and  his  daughter  were  profuse  in  their  grateful 
acknowledgments,  yet  nothing  seems  to  have  come  of  so  fruit- 
ful an  incident  beyond  a  pleasant  extension  of  the  young  stu- 
dent's acquaintance  during  his  stay  in  the  city  —  which,  after 
all,  was  enough;  and  certainly  more  than  he  had  anticipated 
when  he  started  on  his  lonely  stroll. 

The  Scottish  Episcopal  Church,  "  the  Catholic  remainder  of 
the  Ancient  Church  of  Scotland,"  was  at  that  time  in  a  sad 
state  of  depression.  Some  years  had  elapsed  since  the  defeat 
of  the  young  Pretender  had  extinguished  the  hopes  and 
aspirations  of  the  adherents  to  the  Stuart  Succession :  but  the 
severe  penal  laws  against  the  Churchmen  who  had  earned 
their  title  of  non-jurors  by  their  refusal  to  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  William  and  Mary  and  their  later  successors  of 
the  House  of  Hanover,  were  still  in  force;  and  these  men 
were  accustomed  to  meet  for  religious  worship,  if  not  like  the 
primitive  Christians  in  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth,  yet  in 
places  so  obscure  and  comparatively  inaccessible,  as  to  tend  to 
their  better  concealment  from  the  observation  of  their  enemies. 
Our  student  does  not  appear  to  have  had  (either  then  or  at  a 
later  period  of  his  life)  any  predilection  for  their  poHtics;  but 


6  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

he  was  drawn  to  them  by  the  stront^er  sympathies  of  a  com- 
mon Christian  profession.  He  did  not,  therefore,  hesitate,  dur- 
ing his  abode  in  Edinburgh,  to  seek  out  the  sorrowful  and 
dispersed  members  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  attach  himself 
to  their  Communion.  The  secrecy  which  they  found  it  neces- 
sary to  maintain  was  new  to  him;  and  he  used  afterward  to 
describe  with  much  interest  the  winding  streets  and  alleys 
through  which  he  was  taken  until,  having  entered  a  house 
which  had  no  exterior  appearance  of  a  church,  and  passing 
through  a  blind  way  to  a  room  in  the  rear,  he  found  himself 
unexpectedly  in  the  midst  of  a  small  band  of  worshippers. 
Little  did  he  then  think  that  he  was  afterwards  to  seek  and 
receive  the  highest  gifts  in  the  power  of  the  same  Church  to 
bestow,  and  thus  to  become  in  an  important  measure  instru- 
mental in  raising  her  from  the  obscurity  which  he  then  felt  it 
his  privilege  to  share. 

Having  finished  the  course  of  study  which  had  been  planned 
for  him  at  Edinburgh,  he  repaired  to  London;  and  with  the 
approbation  of  Bishop  Sherlock,  then  Incumbent  of  the  See  of 
London,  on  whom  he  had  waited,  agreeably  to  his  father's 
direction  in  the  July  previous,  he  was  on  Friday,  December 
2ist,  1753,  admitted  to  Deacon's  Orders  by  John,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  acting  at  the  request  and  in  the  stead  of  the  Bishop 
of  London,  in  his  Lordship's  Palace  at  Fulham. 

The  requirement  of  the  usual  interval  between  the  con- 
ferring of  Deacon's  and  Priest's  Orders  appears  to  have  been 
relaxed  in  favour  of  candidates  from  the  distant  Colonies; 
and  hence  one  is  not  surprised  to  find  that  on  the  Sunday  fol- 
lowing, December  23d,  1753,  the  Deacon  of  Friday's  Ordina- 
tion was  admitted  at  the  same  place  to  the  Order  of  Priests, 
by  Richard,  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  acting  at  the  request,  and  in 
the  stead  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  It  was  probably  a  dis- 
appointment to  him  that  Sherlock  was  unable  to  officiate  in 
person  at  either  of  these  Ordinations.     He  always  cherished  a 


EARLY   YEARS,   AND   ORDINATION.  ^ 

high  veneration  for  Bishop  Sherlock,  was  accustomed  to  study 
his  sermons  with  great  care;  and,  in  the  opinion  of  his  son 
(Rev.  Charles  Seabury)  used  them  to  some  extent  as  a  model 
upon  which  to  form  his  own  style  in  writing  of  the  same  kind. 
He  was  fond,  afterwards,  of  repeating  a  saying  common 
among  the  younger  Clergy  of  that  day  in  reference  to  the 
two  Sherlocks,  William,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  and  his  son, 
Thomas,  Bishop  of  London,  "  that  the  father  was  the  soundest 
Divine  in  England,  except  the  Son." 

The  witty  Dr.  South  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  elder 
Sherlock  would  not  be  disposed  to  admit  this  or  any  other 
exception.  He  dedicated  his  answer  to  Dr.  Sherlock's  treatise 
on  the  Trinity  — "  To  the  admirers  of  Dr.  Sherlock,  and  to 
himself  the  chief  of  them."  ^ 

3.  Animadversions  upon  Dr.  Sherlock's  book  entitled  "  A  Vindica- 
tion of  the  Holy  and  ever  blessed  Trinity,"  etc.    London,  1693. 


CHAPTER  II. 

FIRST  YEARS  OF  MINISTRY. 

1753-1756. 

CHRISTMAS  DAY  in  1753  fell  on  the  Tuesday  which 
was  but  two  days  after  the  ordination  to  the  Priest- 
hood just  mentioned.  The  newly  ordained  priest  on 
the  morning  of  that  day,  was  sent  with  a  note  of  introduction 
from  the  Chaplain  of  the  Bishop  of  London  to  the  Incumbent 
of  one  of  the  Churches  in  that  city,  apparently  with  the  view 
of  assigning  to  him  some  duty  for  the  day.  The  Incumbent 
gave  him  but  a  surly  reception,  sternly  demanding  upon  his 
entrance  to  the  vestry-room,  who  he  was,  and  what  he  wanted ; 
in  silent  reply  to  which  demands  he  presented  his  note;  the 
comment  upon  which  was,  "  Hah !  Well,  if  the  Bishop  has 
sent  you,  I  suppose  I  must  take  you.  Give  him  a  surplice, 
and  show  him  into  the  desk"  (to  the  Sexton),  "and  do  you, 
Sir,  find  your  places,  and  wait  there  till  I  come."  A  younger 
clergyman,  of  more  amiable  appearance,  meanwhile  seemed 
much  amused  at  this  splenetic  reception.  Coming  back  into 
the  Vestry  after  the  service,  the  Doctor  turning  fiercely  upon 
the  neophyte,  exclaimed,  "  What  is  the  reason,  Sir,  that  you 
did  not  read  the  Litany  ?  "  *'  Because,  Sir,  it  is  not  a  Litany 
day."  "  And  don't  you  know  that  if  the  Ordinary  chooses  to 
have  it  read  on  Festival  days,  it  is  your  duty  to  read  it  ?  " 
"  That  may  be.  Sir,  but  it  is  the  Ordinary's  business  to  let  me 
know  that."  The  old  man's  face  was  black  with  passion,  but 
before  he  had  time  to  explode,  the  younger  clergyman  came  to 


FIRST   YEARS   OF    MINISTRY.  9 

the  rescue,  saying :  "  Doctor,  you  won't  get  much  out  of  this 
young  man ;  you  had  better  turn  him  over  to  me,  for  I  see  you 
don't  want  him :  come,  Mr.  Seabury,  will  you  go  with  me  to  — 
Church  and  preach  for  me ! "  "  1  never  preached  a  sermon 
in  my  life."  *'  Well,  of  all  things  I  should  like  to  hear  a  virgin 
preacher !  "  So  the  young  men  took  themselves  off,  and  after 
dinner  the  virgin  sermon  was  preached;  though  concerning 
its  subject,  and  the  place  where  it  was  broached,  tradition  is 
silent :  as  it  also  is  in  respect  to  any  further  official  acts  of  the 
preacher  during  the  remainder  of  his  stay  in  England. 

In  the  year  following,  1754,  having  received  his  appoint- 
ment as  a  missionary  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gos- 
pel, he  set  sail  for  his  native  land,  and  soon  after  began  the 
regular  exercise  of  his  ministry  at  New  Brunswick,  in  the 
Province  of  New  Jersey.  One  of  his  relatives,  writing  about 
this  time  to  another,  observed :  '*  Mr.  Samuel  Seabury  has 
returned  to  America  again;  an  excellent  physician,  a  learned 
divine,  an  accomplished  gentleman  and  a  pious  Christian ; "  a 
record  which  indicates  the  reputation  which  he  had  in  the 
small  circle  within  which  he  was  then  known,  and  which  it 
was  anticipated  that  his  future  life  would  verify. 

Not  much  is  known  in  regard  to  his  work  during  the  short 
time  of  his  charge  at  New  Brunswick,  but  the  period  is 
interesting,  both  on  account  of  the  evidence  of  his  doctrinal 
principles  afforded  by  his  sermons,  and  also  on  account  of 
the  evidence  of  the  extension  of  his  influence  and  reputation 
in  a  somewhat  wider  sphere,  afforded  by  contemporaneovis 
events  with  which  he  was  associated. 

Among  his  manuscripts  are  several  of  the  sermons  which  he 
preached  at  New  Brunswick.  "  These  discourses,"  observes 
my  father  (from  whose  memoranda  I  have  derived  much  of 
the  information  which  I  have  in  regard  to  this  part  of  the 
story  in  hand),  "while  they  exhibit  substantially  the  same 
theological  opinions,  and  the  same  vigour  and  compression  of 


10  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

style,  which  distinguish  his  later  productions,  yet  differ  from 
them  as  to  certain  minor  shades  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
describe.  They  certainly  give  no  ground  for  the  imputation, 
commonly  cast  upon  the  Church  at  that  period,  of  inculcating 
the  morality  of  the  Gospel  to  the  neglect  or  disparagement  of 
its  distinctive  doctrines.  Holiness  of  life  flowing  from  holi- 
ness of  heart  is  indeed  the  end  which  is  kept  steadily  in  view ; 
but  the  motives  and  influences  by  which  the  heart  is  to  be 
renewed  and  the  life  reformed,  are  unreservedly  referred  to  the 
redemption  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
Whom  He  sent  from  the  Father;  while  at  the  same  time  the 
enthusiasm  which  in  that  age  perverted  the  Gospel  is  guarded 
against,  and  its  weakness  and  artifices  are  exposed  with  a  firm 
and  cautious  touch.  The  discourses  are  written  in  a  bold 
round  hand  with  scarcely  a  mark  of  erasure  or  interlineation ; 
and  though  the  style  is  smooth  and  natural,  yet  to  a  skilful 
observer  it  will  appear,  I  think,  to  be  more  studied  and  care- 
fully finished  than  that  of  his  published  discourses.  Indeed  I 
have  heard  that  at  this  time  of  life  he  used,  after  laying  out 
the  plan  of  his  sermon,  to  write  each  paragraph  with  pencil 
and  slate  before  he  transferred  it  to  paper.  And  I  think  it  not 
improbable  that  this  exceeding  care  in  early  life  laid  the  foun- 
dation for  that  habit  of  combined  precision  and  fluency  to 
which  his  pen  afterwards  attained."  ^ 

This  slate  and  pencil  detail  may  perhaps  provoke  a  smile: 
but  it  certainly  goes  to  prove  what  it  was  intended  to  establish, 
viz.,  exceeding  care  in  composition.  It  indicates  something 
else,  too,  which  is  significant  of  the  small  economies  made 
necessary  by  narrow  incomes.  I  wonder  how  many  of  us  re- 
alize what  the  temptation  to  a  poor  preacher  in  those  days  might 
be  to  extemporize,  considering  how  ill  he  could  afford  the 
expense  of  paper  for  written  sermons.     Still  extemporaneous 

I.  Ms.  Mem.  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury. 


FIRST   YEARS   OF    MINISTRY.  II 

preaching  was  not  then  the  mode,  either  in  the  Church,  or 
yet  in  the  ordinary  ministrations  of  the  sober  divines  of  other 
communions :  and  since  the  sermon,  and  a  good  deal  of 
sermon,  too,  as  we  should  think  nowadays,  had  to  be  written, 
it  behoved  not  to  waste  paper  in  experimental  excursions.  A 
few  years  ago,  at  the  request  of  my  venerated  friend,  Dean 
Hoffman,  I  gave  to  the  library  of  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  a  specimen  manuscript  sermon  of  Bishop  Seabury: 
and  it  was  matter  of  interest  to  us  both  to  observe  that  several 
pages  of  this  sermon  were  written  on  the  blank  sheets  of  old 
letters  received,  and  some  of  them  cross  written  over  the  faces 
of  such  letters  —  insomuch  that,  according  to  the  way  in  which 
the  paper  was  turned,  it  appeared  to  throw  light  on  things 
temporal  as  well  as  on  the  things  eternal  —  the  devout  moni- 
tions, in  one  instance,  being  counterbalanced  by  advices  of  a 
certain  barrel  of  cider  forwarded  by  the  preacher's  friend,  Mr. 
Moore  of  Newtown. 

The  reader  will  be  willing  perhaps  to  accept  the  assurance 
that  these  New  Brunswick  sermons,  as  indeed  the  whole  man- 
uscript collection,  are  well  worthy  of  perusal,  and  afford 
opportunities  for  many  interesting  selections,  without  detailed 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  statement.  Such  a  literary  and 
theological  repast,  as  this  would  involve,  would  be  much  too 
bountiful;  but  there  are  considerations  of  some  importance  in 
the  estimate  of  Bishop  Seabury's  theological  position,  which 
make  a  somewhat  particular  reference  to  one  of  these  dis- 
courses desirable,  if  not  necessary. 

This  discourse  is  based  upon  the  passage  of  I  Cor.  xi,  23  to 
26,  which  it  will  be  remembered  contains  St.  Paul's  account  of 
the  Institution  of  the  Eucharist,  being  that  account  which  is 
embodied  in  what  is  called  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  in  the 
Communion  Office.  It  is  marked  by  the  author  as  "  Sermon 
preached  at  Brunswick  21  0  P.  A  1754,  A.  M.,"  and  its 
introductory  passage  is  here  quoted  entire,  because  it  not  only 


12  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

sliows  the  purpose  then  in  the  view  of  the  author,  hut  also 
very  well  indicates  the  twofold  ohject  which  appears  in  all  his 
sermons ;  that,  namely,  of  clearly  stating  ( i )  the  revealed  will 
of  God,  and  (2)  the  rational  nature  of  that  will  considered  as  a 
rule  of  human  action : 

"  I  have  read  the  whole  passage  of  the  Institution  of  the 
holy  Sacrament,  not  with  a  design  to  consider  every  particular 
contained  in  it;  nor  to  take  notice  of  every  thing  that  might 
he  made  subservient  to  the  most  excellent  purposes,  but  with 
an  intention  to  collect  from  it  the  end  of  the  Institution  of  the 
blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  For  by  considering 
the  end  of  the  Institution  we  shall  be  led  more  perfectly  to 
understand  it,  and  to  use  it  with  greater  advantage  to  ourselves. 
And  though  the  positive  appointment  of  our  Savior  be  suf- 
ficient to  command  our  utmost  respect,  and  most  unfeigned 
obedience;  yet  to  be  convinced  that  it  is  a  most  reasonable 
service,  answering  the  most  excellent  designs,  will  not  only 
engage  our  rational  natures  to  comply  with  it,  but  will  also 
kindle  the  flame  of  our  devotion,  and  mightily  contribute  to  the 
cheerfulness  of  our  obedience,  and  entire  resignation  to  the 
Divine  Will." 

The  reason  for  quoting  from  this  particular  discourse  I 
cannot  better  express  than  in  my  father's  words,  extending  the 
reference  above  noted: 

"  The  sacrificial  character  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  ex- 
pressed in  our  Prayer  Book  more  clearly  and  fully  than  in  the 
English  Prayer  Book,  and  made,  as  is  well  known,  to  conform 
to  the  view  of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church. 
.  .  .  At  present  I  wish  merely  to  remark  that  considering 
that  our  Communion  Service  in  those  features  in  which  it 
differs  from  the  English  service  had  been  adopted  in  com- 


FIRST    YEARS   OF    MINISTRY.  I3 

pliance  with  the  wish  of  Bishop  Seabury,  and  had  been  copi- 
ously explained  and  defended  by  him  in  a  volume  of  sermons 
pubhshed  after  his  consecration  in  Scotland,  and  considering 
also  that  a  majority  of  English  divines,  particularly  in  the 
Georgian  era,  regarded  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Eu- 
charist, as  explained  by  Bishop  Seabury,  with  no  favour,  I  was 
led  to  suspect  that  the  Bishop  had  imbibed  his  opinions  on 
this  subject  during  his  last  visit  to  Scotland;  a  suspicion 
which  was  strengthened  by  a  remark  of  Bishop  White  in  his 
Memoirs.  ...  I  once  stated  my  suspicion  to  my  father 
and  asked  him  if  it  were  correct.  He  assured  me  to  the  con- 
trary, and  remarked  that  he  had  heard  his  father  say  that  the 
opinions  expressed  on  this  subject  in  the  first  volume  of  his 
published  Discourses  were  substantially  those  which  he  had 
always  entertained,  only  that  they  were  in  his  later  years  more 
clearly  defined  and  matured." 

The  remark  attributed  to  Bishop  White  occurs  in  that  part 
of  his  Memoirs  wherein  he  gives  an  account  of  proceedings  of 
the  General  Convention  of  1789.  Referring  to  the  change  in 
the  consecration  prayer  which  took  place  at  that  time,  and  to 
the  conformity  in  this  respect  to  the  usage  of  the  Scotch  Epis- 
copal Church,  Bishop  White  remarks  that  this  change  ''  lay 
very  near  to  the  heart  of  Bishop  Seabury ; "  and  he  adds, 
''  Bishop  Seabury's  attachment  to  these  changes  may  be  learned 
from  the  following  incident.  On  the  morning  of  the  Sunday 
which  occurred  during  the  session  of  the  convention,  the 
author  wished  him  to  consecrate  the  elements.  This  he  de- 
clined. On  the  offer  being  again  made  at  the  time  when  the 
service  was  to  begin,  he  still  declined ;  and,  smiling,  added  — 
*  To  confess  the  truth,  I  hardly  consider  the  form  to  be  used; 
as  strictly  amounting  to  a  consecration.'  The  form  was  of 
course  that  used  heretofore;  the  changes  not  having  taken 


14  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

effect.     These  sentiments  he  had  adopted,  in  his  visit  to  the 
bishops  from  whom  he  had  received  his  Episcopacy."  - 

Knowing  the  sentiments  on  this  point  of  the  Scottish  Bishops 
referred  to,  and  not  knowing  what  the  sentiments  of  Bishop 
Scabury  on  the  same  point  had  previously  been,  it  is  perhaps 
natural  that  Bishop  White  should  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
which  he  here  expressed,  but  which  seems  hardly  to  be  justi- 
fied :  since  Bishop  Seabury's  above  cited  sermon  of  1754  clearly 
indicates  that  "  even  at  this  early  period  he  had  pondered  the 
teachings  of  Joseph  Mede  and  other  great  lights  of  the  An- 
glican Church  on  the  Christian  Sacrifice,  and  weighed  them  in 
the  balance  with  those  of  Tillotson  and  his  revolutionary  fol- 
lowers ;  "  ^  with  whom  the  Scottish  Bishops  certainly  had  little 
sympathy.  The  passage  from  the  sermon  referred  to  is  as 
follows  : 

"  The  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  to  be 
the  Christian  Sacrifice;  and  an  emblem  of  the  Sacrifice  our 
blessed  Redeemer  made,  when  he  offered  himself  upon  the 
cross  a  price  and  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 
Bread,  the  staff  of  life  and  emblem  of  strength,  the  grand  sup- 
port of  the  humane  kind ;  and  Wine,  the  emblem  of  joy  and 
thankfulness,  are  chosen  for  the  materials  of  this  Sacrifice  and 
of  commemorating  the  death  and  passion  of  our  Redeemer; 
and  of  expressing  our  gratitude  to  Almighty  God  for  the 
wonderful  work  of  Man's  Redemption.  And  they  mightily 
express  the  temper  and  design  of  the  Christian  Religion. 

The  Law  of  Moses  represented  all  men  to  be  under  the 
curse  of  death.  And  accordingly  the  sacrifices  of  this  law 
were  all  made  by  shedding  of  Blood,  for  without  this  there 
was  no  remission.     But  now  Christ  our  Sacrifice  being  offered 

2.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  pp. 
154-5.    Ed.  1836. 

3.  Ms.  Mem.  Dr.  Samuel  Scabury. 


FIRST    YEARS    OF    MINISTRY.  1$ 

for  US,  He  hath  slain  the  enmity  and  made  our  peace  with 
God,  through  the  Blood  of  his  Cross.  There  is  therefore  now 
wanting,  only  strength  to  persevere;  and  thankfulness  to  God 
Almighty,  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  for  the  inestimable 
hopes  of  eternal  life.  Instead  therefore  of  shedding  of  Blood, 
which  under  the  Law  was  necessary  to  strengthen  the  Jews  in 
the  Faith  of  the  future  Sacrifice  of  the  Messiah;  our  Savior 
has  instituted  the  Christian  Sacrifice  of  Bread  and  Wine  to  be 
the  emblems  of  his  grace,  and  of  our  joy  and  thankfulness; 
that  we  receiving  the  creatures  of  Bread  and  Wine  according 
to  his  appointment  and  in  remembrance  of  his  Death  and  Pas- 
sion, might  by  faith  be  made  partakers  of  his  most  precious 
Body  and  Blood.  And  thus  is  his  Flesh  Meat  indeed  and  his 
Blood  drink  indeed. 

Thus  the  Sacrament  is  a  continual  Sacrifice  to  God.  And 
our  blessed  Savior  hath  chosen  these  things  to  be  the  materials 
of  this  Sacrifice  and  Symbols  of  his  Body  and  Blood,  which 
have  the  greatest  analogy  to  the  Graces  which  we  need;  and 
which  should  shine  brightest  in  the  Christian  life,  namely 
perseverance  in  well  doing,  and  continual  increase  in  the  di- 
vine likeness;  and  sincere  gratitude,  and  unfeigned  joy  and 
thankfulness  to  Almighty  God,  and  our  adorable  Savior  for 
the  innumerable  benefits  which  his  precious  Blood  shedding 
hath  obtained  for  us.  And  by  the  consecrated  Elements  of 
Bread  and  Wine  we  figure  unto  God  the  Father,  the  Passion 
of  his  Son,  that  according  to  the  tenor  of  his  Covenant,  he  may 
be  gracious  and  propitious  to  us  miserable  sinners." 

The  comparison  of  this  language  used  in  1754  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  preacher's  ministry,  with  that  used  in  his 
sermon  "Of  the  Holy  Eucharist "  included  by  him  in  the 
collection  of  discourses  which  he  published  in  1793,  some 
three  years  before  his  death,  and  which  he  undoubtedly  de- 
signed as  a  statement  and  explanation  of  principles  underlying 


l6  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  American  Prayer  of  Consecration,  cannot  fail  to  establish 
the  fact  that  his  sentiments  upon  the  changes  which  are  said 
to  have  lain  so  near  his  heart  in  1789,  were  not  of  any  recent 
adoption,  but  had  been  woven  into  the  texture  of  his  faith  and 
teaching  throughout  his  whole  priesthood.* 

Before  the  conclusion  of  the  Missionary's  stay  at  New 
Brunswick,  an  episode  occurred  with  which  he  became  to  some 
extent  connected ;  and  which  is  of  interest  both  on  this  ac- 
count, and  as  indicating  the  adverse  nature  of  certain  influ- 
ences which  operated  against  the  Clergy  of  the  Church  in 
the  Colonies,  particularly  those  of  them  who  were  the  rep- 
resentatives there  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in 
Foreign  parts. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Beach  who,  about  the  time  of  the  conformity 
of  Mr.  Seabury's  father,  had  left  the  Congregational  Ministry 
and  received  Orders  in  England,  returning  as  a  Missionary  of 
the  Society,  had  settled  in  Newtown,  Connecticut;  where  for 
many  years  he  had  with  great  diligence  laboured,  both  to  the 
edification  of  his  people,  and  to  the  increase  of  the  respect 
and  confidence  of  his  brother  Missionaries  and  of  the  Society. 
Mr.  Beach,  however,  notwithstanding  his  general  rectitude, 
seems  at  one  time  to  have  given  some  just  cause  of  offence, 
by  certain  teaching  in  regard  to  the  state  of  the  faithful 
departed,  which  excited  no  little  disturbance  among  those  who 
were  aware  of  it.  Suffering  great  affliction  on  account  of  the 
death  of  his  wife,  his  grief  seems  to  have  led  him  into  error : 
for  not  content  that  she  should  await  the  time  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion, he  insisted  upon  it  that  she  had  gone  immediately  into 
happiness  and  glory  eternal.  Nor  was  he  disposed  merely  to 
cherish  this  conviction  for  his  own  personal  comfort,  but  he 
undertook  to  instruct  his  people  in  the  same  notion,  and  even 
attacked  all  the  clergy  he  met  with  on  the  same  subject,  going 

4.  Discourses   on   several   subjects,   by   Bishop   Seabury,   vol,   I,   pp. 
175-7.    Ed.  1793. 


FIRST   YEARS   OF    MINISTRY.  I7 

to  the  further  extent  of  publishing  a  sermon  designed  to 
estabHsh  a  doctrine  which  by  this  time  he  beHeved  to  be  essen- 
tial for  the  acceptance  of  all  Christian  believers. 

The  matter  of  Mr.  Beach's  defection  being  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wetmore,  of  Rye,  the  Bishop  of 
London's  Commissary,  was  by  him  laid  before  a  Convocation 
of  the  Clergy  who  considered  the  case,  and  took  such  measures 
as  were  proper  for  the  satisfaction  and  instruction  of  the 
people  on  the  point  involved;  and  by  their  action  Mr.  Beach 
appears  to  have  been  led  to  reconsider  the  position  which  he 
had  unadvisedly  taken;  and  he  seems  to  have  pursued  his 
course  as  a  Missionary  thereafter  without  giving  further 
grounds  of  exception  to  his  teaching  in  this  or  any  other 
respect.  The  Commissary  appointed  the  Missionary  of 
New  Brunswick  to  preach  the  sermon  before  the  Convocation 
on  this  occasion.  "  I  thought  it  hard  upon  me,"  said  he,  "  and 
I  told  him  that  I  was  the  youngest  Clergyman  in  the  Prov- 
inces." "  I  do  not  care  for  that,"  was  the  reply,  "  you  are 
better  able  to  do  it  than  anyone  else,  and  I  shall  insist  upon 
your  doing  it."  Many  years  after,  at  the  conclusion  of  one  of 
his  Episcopal  functions,  an  old  man  accosted  him,  saying,  "  I 
have  not  seen  you.  Bishop,  since  you  preached  at  the  trial  of 
old  Mr.  Beach :  and  I  remember  that,  as  I  saw  you  go  up  into 
the  pulpit,  I  said  to  myself,  "  These  Ministers  must  be  very 
careless  about  their  business,  when  they  send  that  boy  to 
preach  for  them  at  such  a  time ;  but  in  a  few  minutes  I  owned 
that  if  you  had  a  boy's  face,  you  had  a  man's  head." 

The  fulfilment  of  this  duty  seems  to  have  been  all,  or  at 
least  the  chief  concern  of  the  New  Brunswick  Missionary  with 
this  episode :  but  Mr.  Beach's  temporary  defection  gave  occa- 
sion to  the  Congregational  watchers  to  point  out  to  the 
venerable  Society  what  they  considered  to  be  its  duty  in  the 
premises ;  and  gave  them  also  the  pleasure  of  overtaking  in  a 
fault  one  about  whose  loss  from  their  ranks  there  had  been 


l8  MEMOIR   OF   BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

considerable  soreness  of  feeling,  and  whose  course  in  the 
Ministry  of  the  Church  they  were  apparently  not  sorry  to 
discover  to  be  worthy  of  blame,  so  that  they  might  safely 
indulge  themselves  in  reading  the  Church  Clergy  a  lecture  in 
regard  to  soundness  of  doctrine. 

It  is  evident  from  what  has  been  related,  that  if  their  real 
had  been  the  same  as  their  professed  motive,  they  would  with 
a  little  patience  have  been  satisfied  with  the  care  taken  by  the 
Provincial  Missionaries  for  the  preservation  of  the  faith;  and 
might  have  spared  themselves  the  trouble  of  appealing  to  the 
Society  for  its  condemnation  of  Mr.  Beach ;  since  the  Mission- 
aries themselves  proved  equal  to  the  emergency  without  its 
special  interposition. 

But  then  the  following  correspondence  would  not  have  taken 
place,  and  we  should  have  been  deprived  of  the  instruction 
which  it  appears  to  furnish  as  to  the  temper  of  the  times,  and 
the  feeling  in  the  Colonies  against  the  Society;  which  in  this 
instance,  although  veiled  under  the  form  of  very  creditable 
diplomatic  expression,  is  not  altogether  difficult  to  be  dis- 
cerned. 

The  correspondence  referred  to  consists  of  a  letter  to  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Bearcroft,  the  Society's  Secretary,  from  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Mather  and  Wells,  toward  the  end  of  1755,  and  of 
Dr.  Bearcroft's  answer  in  the  early  part  of  1757.  The  Manu- 
script preserved  among  the  Bishop's  papers,  appears  from  its 
superscription  to  have  been  a  copy  made  for  him  June  26, 
1760,  and  gives  the  letters  as  follows: 

"  Stamford,  Connecticut,  December  24th,  1755. 
Rev.  Sir: 

As  the  Honorable  Society  of  which  you  are  a  member,  in 
the  Annual  Abstract  of  their  proceedings,  desire  their  friends 
in  America  to  be  so  just  to  them,  when  any  person  appears 
there  in  the  character  of  a  Clergyman  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 


FIRST   YEARS   OF   MINISTRY.  I9 

land,  but  by  his  behaviour  disgraces  that  character;  to  ex- 
amine, as  far  as  may  be,  into  his  letters  of  Orders,  his  name, 
etc. ;  and  if  he  appears  to  be  one  of  their  Missionaries,  they 
intreat  their  friends  in  the  sacred  name  of  Christ  to  inform 
them  that  they  may  put  away  from  them  that  wicked  person ; 

And  as  heresy  or  false  doctrine  in  a  Missionary  is  as  truly 
subversive  of  the  great  designs  of  the  Gospel  Ministry,  as  an 
immoral  life,  we  presume  an  information  on  this  head  would 
be  equally  acceptable  to  your  Honorable  Board.  In  this  con- 
fidence and  from  a  sense  of  duty  as  Ministers  of  Christ  whose 
business  it  is  to  guard  against  errors  in  doctrine,  it  was  that 
the  Reverend  Association  to  which  we  belong  came  into  the 
following  resolve,  which  you  will  see  we  were  ordered  to 
transmit  to  you ;  viz.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Association  at  the 
Western  district  in  Fairfield  County  at  Canaan  October  28th, 

1755; 

The  Association  taking  notice  of  a  sermon  that  was  preached 
and  published  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beach,  Missionary  of  the 
Society  for  propagating  the  Gospel,  in  which  are  promulgated 
some  errors  subversive  of  the  Christian  faith ;  in  the  great  and 
important  doctrines  of  a  future  resurrection  and  General  Judg- 
ment: and  considering  the  unwearied  pains  Mr.  Beach  has 
taken  to  propagate  these  errors,  his  success  in  gaining  prose- 
lytes among  his  own  people,  and  others,  and  that  the  other 
Missionaries  do  not  take  such  public  measures  as  the  case 
seems  to  require,  to  convince  the  people  of  the  fatal  tendency 
of  such  errors,  and  considering  ourselves  as  having  a  special 
concern  in  the  affair,  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beach  lives  in  our  near 
neighborhood,  and  frequently  preaches  within  our  bounds,  or- 
dered that  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Moses  Mather  and  Noah  Wells, 
two  of  our  members,  do  write  a  letter  to  the  Sect,  of  the 
Society,  and  transmit  one  of  Mr.  Beach's  sermons  to  him, 
with  a  copy  of  this  resolve,  that  the  Honorable  Society  may 
have  an  opportunity  to  take  such  measures,  as  they  in  their 


20  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

wisdom  may  think  proper,  to  discountenance  such  danj^erous 
principles,  and  prevent  for  the  future  the  bad  consequences  of 
them. 

A  True  Copy  — 

Signed, 
Noah  Wells,  Register  to  the  Association. 

Agreeable  therefore  to  the  trust  reposed  in  us,  we  now  send 
you  the  above  resolves,  together  with  the  sermon  of  Mr. 
Beach's  referred  to  therein. 

'Tis  needless  for  us,  we  apprehend  to  point  out  to  the  So- 
ciety the  errors  it  contains,  and  the  forced  glosses  and  misrep- 
resentations of  sundry  texts  of  Scripture  adduced  in  support 
of  the  same.  By  a  perusal  of  the  piece,  they  themselves,  will 
be  able  to  judge  how  far  the  notions  it  contains  are  agreeable 
to  the  doctrines  of  your  Church  respecting  the  resurrection 
as  contained  in  the  Creeds,  Homilies,  and  Burial  Office  she 
uses,  their  consistency  with  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists 
and  St.  Paul  and  the  general  sentiments  of  the  Christian 
Church  upon  that  important  article  of  faith,  in  every  age  since 
the  Apostles'  time.  We  are  sorry  we  were  not  able  to  present 
you  with  a  fresh  copy  of  ]\Ir.  Beach's  sermon,  but  as  the  im- 
pression was  speedily  taken  off,  and  by  reason  of  the  nov- 
elty of  the  doctrine,  the  book  was  much  sought  after,  and 
soon  passed  through  many  hands  we  are  not  able  to  obtain 
one,  this  we  trust  will  excuse  us  in  sending  one  somewhat 
defaced. 

That  your  Honorable  Society  may  be  directed  to  the  most 
proper  and  effectual  measures,  to  guard  against  heresy  and 
error  of  every  kind  —  that  they  may  be  much  more  extensively 
useful  in  prosecuting  the  truly  noble  designs  of  their  original 
incorporation,  that  agreeable  hereto  they  may  be  made  instru- 
ments of  carrying  the  light  of  the  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ  to 
the  remotest  heathen  nations,  and  spreading  the  joyful  news 


FIRST   YEARS   OF    MINISTRY.  21 

of  salvation  to  the  most  distant  and  barbarous  lands  is  the 
sincere  wish  and  earnest  prayer  of  your  very  humble  servants, 
etc.  Moses  Mather 

Noah  Wells 
To  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bearcroft 
Sect,  to  the  Hon.  Society. 

From  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bearcroft. 

London  Charter  House, 

Feb.  28th,  1757. 
Rev.  Sirs. 

I  write  this  by  the  express  order  of  the  Society  for  the 
propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  parts  to  thank  you  and 
your  brethren  for  your  letter  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  resurrection  published  by  Mr.  Beach  in  a  sermon 
entitled  a  modest  enquiry  into  the  state  of  the  dead,  a  copy  of 
which  you  were  pleased  to  transmit.  The  Society  having 
maturely  considered  this  sermon  are  much  concerned  to  find 
that  so  learned  and  able  a  Missionary  from  them  should  have 
fallen  into  error  in  the  great  articles  of  the  Resurrection  of  the 
Dead,  and  of  a  future  judgment.  And  the  requisite  steps  are 
taken  to  set  Mr.  Beach  and  all  his  followers  right  in  this  most 
important  point  —  if  this  be  not  already  done  by  his  discours- 
ing with  his  brother  missionaries  and  his  consequent  mature 
thoughts  on  the  subject.  The  Society  are  obliged  to  you  for 
your  sincere  wish  and  earnest  prayer  that  they  may  be  useful 
and  successful  in  the  designs  of  their  original  incorporation ; 
which  was  and  is  in  the  first  place,  to  provide  a  maintenance 
for  our  orthodox  clergy,  for  the  public  worship  of  God,  in  our 
Plantations,  Colonies  and  Territories  beyond  the  seas ;  and 
then  to  make  such  other  provision  as  may  be  necessary,  for  the 
propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  parts  —  That  God  may 
bless  all  our  endeavours  to  propagate  the  Gospel  of  His  dear 


22  MEMOIR   OF    P.ISIIOP    SEABURY. 

Son  is  the  sincere  wish  and  hearty  prayer  of  your  faithful  and 
affectionate 

Servant  in  Christ 

Philip  Bearcroft,  Sect. 

To  the 

Rev.  Mr.  Obadiah  (sic)  Mather 

&  Mr.  Noah  Wells,  New  England. 
Superscribed 

To  the  Rev^  Mr.  Obadiah  Mather 

&  Mr.  Moses  (sic)  Wells,  probably  at  or  near  Stamford 
Connecticut  etc." 

There  is  much  that  is  suggestive  and  interesting  in  this  cor- 
respondence, but  nothing  more  so,  I  think,  than  the  most  polite 
intimation  of  the  deputation  that  the  Society  should,  in  ac- 
cordance with  "  the  truly  noble  designs  of  their  original  incor- 
poration," occupy  themselves  with  sending  their  Missionaries 
"  to  the  remotest  heathen  Nations  "  "  spreading  the  joyful 
news  of  salvation  to  the  most  distant  and  barbarous  lands ; " 
that  is  to  say,  keeping  them  as  far  as  possible  from  what  they 
called  their  "  hounds-''  whereas  they  very  well  knew,  as  Dr. 
Bearcroft  with  equal  politeness  reminds  them,  that  the  design 
of  the  original  incorporation  "  was  and  is  in  the  first  place  to 
provide  a  maintenance  for  the  orthodox  clergy,  for  the  public 
worship  of  God  m  our  Plantations,  Colonies  and  Territories 
beyond  the  seas ;  and  then  to  make  such  other  provision  as  may 
be  necessary  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
parts," 


CHAPTER  HI. 
TRANSITION  PERIOD. 

1756-7. 

THE  cure  at  New  Brunswick  beginning  in  1754,  was 
succeeded  by  the  cure  at  Jamaica  beginning  in  1757: 
but  the  Missionary  would  appear  to  have  taken  up 
his  residence  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jamaica,  before  entirely 
giving  up  the  care  of  New  Brunswick.  The  parson  of  those 
days  was  wont  to  supplement  the  scanty  stipends  arising  from 
his  proper  vocation  with  what  he  could  gather  from  other 
occupations;  and  so  was  sometimes  doctor,  and  schoolmaster, 
and  farmer  also,  as  well  as  parson:  and  the  missionary  ap- 
pears to  have  made  provision  for  his  support  by  the  purchase 
of  a  small  farm  at  Jamaica  in  1757.  There  is  some  reason  to 
suppose  that  he  had  previously  made  a  similar  purchase  in 
Newtown,  a  village  not  far  from  Jamaica,  which  perhaps  he 
may  have  exchanged,  or  otherwise  parted  from,  in  acquiring 
the  farm  at  the  latter  place.  At  all  events,  his  affairs  seem  to 
have  required  about  this  period  of  1756-7,  frequent  journeys 
from  New  Brunswick  to  Long  Island,  or  Nassau  Island  as  it 
was  then  named,  and  also  to  New  York;  and  these  journeys, 
belonging  to  what  may  be  called  the  transition  period  between 
the  settlements  in  New  Brunswick  and  Jamaica,  were  not 
without  important  influences  upon  his  life. 

It  may  be  difficult  for  those  who  associate  the  idea  of  the 
journey  from  New  Brunswick  to  New  York,  with  that  of  an 
hour's  ride  in  an  express  train,  to  realize  what  was  involved  in 

23 


24  MEMOIR    OF    EISIIOP    SEABURY. 

that  journey  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking.  As  nearly 
as  I  can  make  out  the  process,  it  was  by  a  ferry  down  the 
Raritan  and  across  to  Staten  Island ;  and  by  ferry  from  Staten 
Island  to  New  York;  and  then  if  the  journey  were  to  be  con- 
tinued to  Nassau  Island  there  was  another  ferry  trip  from  the 
Battery  to  Brooklyn,  succeeded  by  the  drive  from  Brooklyn  to 
Newtown  or  Jamaica,  or  other  place  on  the  Island  as  the  case 
might  be.  The  ferry  boat  from  Staten  Island  to  New  York  was 
a  small  sloop  operated  by  a  man  with  a  couple  of  boys  as  help- 
ers; and  one  day  our  young  Missionary  using  this  mode  of 
transportation  found  himself  in  a  position  involving  serious 
risk  to  the  vessel  and  to  those  on  board.  The  Skipper  proved 
to  be  sufficiently  intoxicated  to  be  very  reckless  in  the  manage- 
ment of  his  boat ;  and  after  expostulating  with  him  in  vain  on 
the  danger  of  his  course,  the  passenger  pushed  him  away  from 
his  place  and  took  the  helm  himself;  and  finding  him  still 
fractious  and  troublesome  he  laid  him  down  in  the  boat,  and 
with  the  help  of  the  boys  tied  him  with  ropes,  so  that  he  could 
no  longer  interfere,  and  then  brought  the  boat  safely  to  the 
landing.  A  number  of  people  who  had  gathered  on  the  Bat- 
tery, watching  the  proceedings  from  a  distance,  and  anticipat- 
ing some  serious  result  of  the  difficulty,  gladly  welcomed  him 
on  his  arrival,  and  took  pleasure  in  escorting  the  Skipper  to 
the  nearest  pump,  where  by  cooling  streams  he  was  duly 
sobered,  if  not  refreshed. 

At  a  later  period  of  the  Bishop's  life,  while  he  resided  in 
New  York  during  the  Revolutionary  War  he  served  as  the 
Society's  Missionary  at  Staten  Island,^  but  his  personal  asso- 
ciations date  back  to  the  times  which  we  are  now  considering, 
while  he  was  in  the  habit  of  passing  through  that  region,  some- 
times no  doubt  tarrying  there  long  enough  to  become  ac- 
quainted with  resident  families.     Among  these  was  the  Hicks 

I.  Bishop  Perry;  History  Episcopal  Church,  II,  50. 


TRANSITION    PERIOD.  2$ 

family,  a  branch  of  that  which  gave  name  to  a  division  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,  commonly  called  Quakers.  One  of  this 
family,  Mr.  Edward  Hicks,  had  been  a  merchant  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  some  time  previous  to  the  period  under  consid- 
eration, had  retired  from  business  and  settled  on  Staten  Island. 
This  gentleman  married  Violetta  Ricketts,  a  daughter  of  Wil- 
liam Ricketts,  and  Mary  Walton,  his  wife.  The  name  of 
Ricketts  appears  in  the  Colony  of  New  York  as  that  of  a 
family  of  good  social  standing,  and  is  an  instance  of  one  of 
those  changes  in  form  which  one  sometimes  observes  to  have 
taken  place  in  course  of  time  rather  disadvantageously,  having 
been  originally  Ricard.  At  the  time  we  speak  of  Edward  Hicks 
seems  to  have  been  a  widower,  and  to  have  had  his  residence 
on  Staten  Island  with  his  daughter  Mary  Hicks,  and  his  son 
William.  Another  son  of  Edward  and  Violetta  Hicks  was 
Edward,  a  Colonel  in  the  British  Army,  and  there  seem  also 
to  have  been  three  other  children  of  this  marriage  whose 
names  I  do  not  know.  It  is  easy  to  imagine  that  acquaintance 
with  this  family  might  have  come  to  the  Missionary  of  New 
Brunswick  through  representatives  of  the  same  family  on 
Long  Island,  where  so  large  a  part  of  his  life  had  been  spent. 
But,  in  whatever  way,  the  acquaintance  was  in  fact  established ; 
and  the  result  was  the  growth  of  an  attachment  between  him 
and  Mary,  the  daughter  of  Edward  Hicks,  which  led  to  their 
marriage  on  the  12th  day  of  October,  1756. 

To  this  marriage  Mr.  Hicks  was  opposed  —  so  far  opposed 
at  least  as  apparently  to  refuse  to  sanction  it;  and  this  led  to 
its  being  performed  not  on  Staten  Island  where  Mr.  Hicks 
resided,  but  in  New  York,  and  probably  at  the  house  of  Col. 
William  Ricketts,  the  maternal  uncle  of  the  bride.  The  mar- 
riage was  solemnized  by  the  groom's  father,  the  Rector  of 
St.  George's,  Hempstead. 

With  regard  to  her  who  thus  bravely  cast  in  her  lot  with 
the  subject  of  this  Memoir,  the  tradition  which  my  father  told 


26  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

nic  he  had  derived  from  her  children  in  Ihcir  maturity  was, 
that  she  was  "  a  lady  of  good  sense,  of  cultivated  taste,  and  of 
refined  and  generous  feelings;  and  that  both  as  a  wife  and 
mother  she  was  all  that  husband  or  children  could  desire." 
I  feel  the  more  bound  to  perpetuate  this  tradition,  as  there  is 
little  else  now  known  of  her  to  whom  it  relates,  and  also  as 
remembering  how  little  there  is  of  conspicuous  action  in  the 
life  of  many  a  woman  whose  unseen  influence  nevertheless  is 
the  potent  source  of  the  strong  and  good  living  for  which  her 
husband  has  become  known ;  and  whose  unselfish  devotion, 
hardly  noticed  perhaps  in  life,  is  all  the  more  deeply  realized 
when  it  has  passed  away  beyond  recall. - 

With  regard  to  the  ground  of  the  opposition  of  Mr.  Hicks 
to  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  there  is,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
no  direct  evidence  to  be  adduced.  It  may  have  been  based 
(i)   upon  some  personal  feeling  against  the  young  man,  or 

(2)  upon  the  belief  that  the  connection  was  imprudent,  or 

(3)  upon  the  conviction  that  he  himself  would  thereby  be 
involved  in  complications  which  it  would  be  inconvenient  to 
meet  and  impossible  to  avoid,  or  (4)  upon  mere  caprice.  To 
the  young  people  it  probably  seemed  that  the  objection  was 
based  upon  the  fourth  of  these  supposed  grounds.  From  the 
history  of  the  subsequent  relations  of  Mr.  Hicks  with  his 
son-in-law,  I  am  inclined  to  infer  that  the  real  solution  of  the 
problem  is  furnished  by  the  third  supposition.  There  are  two 
facts,  of  which  the  young  people  at  the  time  of  their  marriage 
appear  not  to  have  been  aware,  which  lead  me  to  this  infer- 
ence: one  of  which  is  that  Mr.  Hicks  was  under  certain 
pecuniary  obligations  to  his  daughter ;  the  other  being  that  his 

2.  Bishop  Perry  notes  the  death  of  Mary  (Hicks)  Seabury,  which 
is  not  mentioned  in  Bishop  Seabury's  record  in  his  family  Bible,  as 
of  October  12,  1780  — the  24th  anniversary  of  her  wedding.  History 
Episcopal  Church,  H,  446. 


TRANSITION    PERIOD.  27 

affairs  were  in  such  condition  as  to  make  it  inconvenient  for 
him  to  discharge  these  obHgations. 

The  subsequent  claim  for  the  settlement  of  these  obliga- 
tions, and  the  discussion  of  issues  raised  by  the  failure  of 
Mr.  Hicks  to  meet  certain  other  obligations  into  which  he  had 
entered  after  the  marriage ;  with  the  alleged  reasons  for  not  ful- 
filling any  of  these  obligations,  and  the  answers  to  those  reasons, 
appear  to  have  furnished  materials  for  a  protracted  controversy 
which  dragged  on  for  several  years,  and  would  seem  to  have 
been  either  litigated,  or  submitted  to  arbitration,  probably  the 
latter.  The  series  of  papers,  more  or  less  formal  in  character, 
which  has  come  down  to  me  is  not  sufficiently  complete  to 
enable  me  to  state  the  final  result  of  the  controversy.  My 
father's  impression  in  regard  to  the  Arbitration  was  that  Mr. 
Seabury  obtained  the  award,  and  the  lawyers  obtained  the 
property:  but  my  father  was  not  a  lawyer.  Without  giving 
positive  information  as  to  the  result,  however,  the  papers  very 
fully  and  clearly  show  the  position  taken  by^ach  of  the  dis- 
putants ;  and  their  manner  of  presenting  their  respective  claims 
throws  much  light  on  their  several  characters. 

It  does  not  seem  worth  while  to  go  into  a  full  account  of 
this  controversy.  The  main  facts,  stated  by  Mr.  Seabury  and 
admitted  by  Mr.  Hicks,  were  that  two  legacies  from  their 
grandfather  and  grandmother  Ricketts  to  the  children  of  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Hicks,  amounting  together  to  some  £1700  —  had 
been  received  by  Mr.  Hicks,  and  that  the  one-sixth  share  of 
this,  belonging  to  Mary,  wife  of  Samuel  Seabury  had  not  been 
paid  over  to  her;  that  Mr.  Hicks  had  promised  to  Mr.  Sea- 
bury, at  the  time  he  was  about  to  purchase  his  farm,  the  sum 
of  £400, —  and  that  instead  of  fulfilling  that  promise  he  had 
agreed  to  go  on  a  bond  for  that  amount  if  borrowed,  and  to 
pay  the  interest  thereon;  and  that  although  Mr.  Hicks  had  in 
fact  executed  such  bond  to  Mr.  Nathaniel  Marston  who  had 
loaned  the  money,  yet  that  after  the  lapse  of  three  years,  no 


28  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SIiABURY. 

interest  having  been  paid  thereon  Mr.  Seabury  had  to  pay  it 
himself;  that  Mr.  Hicks  had  empowered  Mr.  Seabury  to 
recover  for  him  certain  monies  in  the  hands  of  his  son  WilHam 
Hicks ;  and,  while  directing  the  public  sale  of  his  own  per- 
sonal property,  Mr.  Hicks  had  reserved  from  it  certain  plate, 
furniture  and  servants,  which  he  duly  transferred  to  Mr. 
Seabury. 

With  regard  to  this  transfer,  Mr.  Seabury  claimed  that  it 
had  been  made  to  him  as  security  for  amounts  to  be  paid  to 
him;  which  view  of  the  case  Mr.  Hicks  repudiated,  as  he  did 
also  the  transfer.  Nothing  was  collected  by  Mr.  Seabury  from 
William  Hicks ;  and  Mr.  Edward  Hicks,  having  become  recon- 
ciled to  his  son  William,  took  occasion  to  deliver  to  him  part 
of  the  property  which  he  had  previously  transferred  to  Mr. 
Seabury,  and  then  demanded  the  remainder  from  Mr.  Seabury 
as  having  been  long  injuriously  detained  from  him. 

With  regard  to  the  £400,  while  denying  that  he  had  in- 
tended it  as  a  gift  to  his  son-in-law,  Mr.  Hicks  admitted  that 
he  had  designed  to  pay  the  interest  on  it  without  carrying  it 
to  Mr.  Seabury's  account ;  and  claimed  that  he  had  told  his 
son  William  to  pay  the  first  year's  interest,  and  that  William 
had  once  called  on  Mr.  Marston  for  the  purpose,  but  had  not 
found  him  at  home  —  which  he  seems  to  have  considered  quite 
as  much  effort  as  the  case  required. 

With  regard  to  the  claim  for  the  one-sixth  share  of  the 
legacies,  amounting  to  some  two  hundred  and  eighty  odd 
pounds,  Mr.  Hicks  frankly  admits  the  legality  of  the  demand ; 
but,  having  several  charges  to  offer  in  reduction,  he  says,  **  I 
would  have  the  balance  to  be  settled  by  a  jury  or  an  impartial 
arbitration,  and  not  by  a  man  so  intent  upon  promoting  his 
own  private  interest  as  Mr.  Seabury  is." 

The  formal  statement  of  these  several  charges  Mr.  Hicks 
appears  to  have  made,  though  it  is  not  among  the  papers 
which  have  come  to  me.     The  nature  of  some  of  those  charges. 


TRANSITION    PERIOD.  29 

and  the  grounds  upon  which  Mr.  Seabury  objected  to  them 
were  set  forth  in  a  paper,  a  fragment  of  which  has  been  pre- 
served  among  his  papers,  and  which  affords  information  in 
regard  to  various  details  of  the  controversy,  viewed,  it  need 
hardly  be  said,  from  a  dift'erent  standpoint  from  that  of  Mr. 
Hicks.  It  would  be  tedious  to  go  particularly  into  these  de- 
tails, and  could  serve  no  good  purpose.  But  it  has  seemed 
proper  to  give  some  account  of  the  controversy,  as  one  of  the 
experiences  of  the  life  which  we  are  following,  and  to  put  on 
record  the  statement  that  the  extant  papers  appear  fully  to 
justify  the  position  which  Mr.  Seabury  held  in  it.  In  closing 
this  chapter,  however,  and  taking  leave  of  the  subject,  I  am 
disposed  to  think  it  well  to  give  a  brief  extract  from  Mr. 
Seabury's  statement,  as  showing  the  manner  in  which  he  con- 
ducted his  side  of  the  controversy ;  and  as  illustrating  not  only 
the  calm  and  temperate  way  in  which  he  handled  it,  but  also 
his  characteristic  habit  of  falling  back  upon  sound  general 
principles  as  affording  the  best  guide  for  action  in  practical 
affairs.     The  extract  is  as  follows : 

"  Mr.  Hicks  has  charged  me  £250  for  my  wife's  board  and 
clothing  from  her  Mother's  death  'till  her  marriage,  and  in 
justification  of  this  charge,  says  it  is  supported  by  the  laws  of 
his  country.  The  laws  of  his  country  I  know  oblige  him  and 
every  man  to  maintain  and  support  his  own  children.  It  can 
therefore  be  only  in  some  particular  cases,  that  the  laws  will 
permit  a  man  to  charge  his  children  for  board  and  clothing, 
viz. :  when  the  man  is  unable  to  provide  it  for  them,  and  they 
have  ability  to  provide  it  for  themselves.  But  Mr.  Hicks  can- 
not say  this  was  his  case.  During  the  whole  period  for  which 
this  charge  is  made  (which  Mr.  Hicks  has  overrated  by  14 
months),  he  supported  the  character  of  an  opulent  merchant, 
and  lived  in  a  fashionable  and  genteel  manner.  Those  laws 
of  his  country  therefore  which  oblige  him  to  take  care  of  his 
children  and  maintain  them  ought  here   to  take  place.     To 


30  MExMOlR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

these  laws  of  his  country  may  be  added  the  law  of  Nature, 
which  is  prior  to  all  laws  of  civil  Society ;  and  binds  all  par- 
ents by  the  stronger  ties  of  reason  and  instinct,  to  provide  for 
the  support  of  their  offspring.  The  laws  also  of  justice  and 
humanity  require  that  we  should  support  those  to  whom  wc 
have  given  being.  The  laws  of  the  Christian  Religion  lay 
men  under  the  same  obligations ;  one  of  its  greatest  Preachers 
having  declared  that  parents  ought  to  provide  for  their  chil- 
dren and  not  children  for  their  parents.     Besides  — 

The  duty,  obedience,  submission,  and  service  of  a  child  are 
due  to  its  parent  only  on  account  of  the  maintenance,  protec- 
tion and  education  it  receives;  for  no  one  that  considers  the 
matter  will  suppose  that  a  child  is  under  any  obligations  to  a 
father  for  its  being,  when  perhaps  the  being  of  the  child  was 
never  once  thought  of.  It  is  therefore  for  its  well  being  that 
the  child  is  under  any  obligations ;  and  the  father  that  provides 
best  for  his  children,  lays  them  under  the  strongest  obligations 
of  obedience,  service  and  gratitude.  The  child  therefore  that 
is  obliged  to  pay  for  its  maintenance  is  under  no  greater  obli- 
gations to  its  parents,  than  to  strangers;  for  strangers  would 
have  taken  care  of  it  and  maintained  it  upon  the  same  terms. 
The  principles  therefore  upon  which  Mr.  Hicks  proceeds,  will 
cancel  all  obligations  of  children  to  their  parents,  and  ought 
not  to  be  admitted." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ACCESSION  TO  THE  JAMAICA  PARISH. 

^757. 

THE  New  Brunswick  Missionary,  with  the  consent  of 
the  Venerable  Society,  transferred  his  labours  to 
Jamaica;  becoming  there  the  Minister  or  Rector  of 
Grace  Church  in  the  early  part  of  1757.  His  official  connec- 
tion with  that  Parish  was  described  at  different  times  by  each 
of  these  titles.^  There  are  a  number  of  things  in  this  Jamaica 
settlement  which  are  not  a  little  perplexing;  and  in  view  of 
these  perplexities,  one  is  not  surprised  that  serious  differences 
in  regard  to  it  existed  at  the  time,  and  that  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  Seabury  should  have  been  afterwards  described  as  having 
given  occasion  to  the  revival  of  an  old  feud  between  the 
Churchmen  and  the  Dissenters  of  the  place.^ 

Without  going  into  all  the  details  of  that  feud  (which  may 
be  gathered  from  the  valuable  Parish  history  of  the  late  Mr. 
Henry  Onderdonk,  Jr.)^  it  seems  nevertheless  necessary  to 
give  an  account  of  this  Jamaica  settlement,  and  of  the  condi- 
tions under  which  it  was  accomplished.  And  as  the  under- 
standing of  the  situation  thus  to  be  indicated  may  well  affect 

1.  In  the  petition  for  a  charter,  as  given  by  Onderdonk  (Antiquities 
of  Parish  Church  of  Jamaica,  p.  59),  Mr.  Seabury  signs  as  Rector. 
In  the  copy  of  this  Petition  in  Documentary  History  of  New  York, 
III,  324,  the  signature  is  followed  by  the  word  Minister. 

2.  Riker's  Annals  of  Newtown  —  p.  248. 

3.  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica. 

31 


32  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

not  only  onr  interest  in  the  subject  of  the  present  memoir,  but 
also  in  some  degree  our  appreciation  of  the  position  of  others 
in  analogous  cases,  it  will  perhaps  be  worth  while  to  look  a 
little  into  the  history  of  the  Ecclesiastical  system  of  which  the 
Provincial  Clergy  were  a  part,  and  into  the  nature  of  the 
difficulties  encountered  in  the  application  of  it  at  Jamaica. 

It  is  very  probable  that  the  title  of  Missionary  is  among  the 
oldest  of  those  terms  by  which  the  Clergy  in  their  several 
orders  have  been  from  time  to  time  designated.  At  all  events, 
whether  by  that  title  or  not,  the  Clergy  were  in  early  times  in 
fact  sent  by  their  Bishops  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  dispense 
the  Sacraments  to  such  people,  and  in  such  places,  as  to  those 
having  the  Episcopal  Authority  seemed  most  convenient;  and 
so  long  as  the  inhabitants  of  a  country  were  not  yet  generally 
converted  to  Christianity,  this  might  well  continue  to  be  the 
most  desirable  arrangement.  But  when  the  number  of  Chris- 
tians increased,  and  men  began  to  have  settled  places  of 
Christian  worship,  it  became  convenient  that  they  should  have 
their  own  clergy  resident  among  them ;  and  this  again  led  to 
their  having  something  to  say  in  regard  to  the  choice  of  those 
who  were  to  minister  among  them.  Naturally  a  different 
plan  would  prevail  in  consequence  of  such  a  change  in  circum- 
stances; and  the  settlement  of  the  Clergy  in  parochial  dis- 
tricts would  bring  about,  what  has  ever  since  in  one  form  or 
other  been  required,  that  there  should  be  not  only  the  authority 
to  exercise  the  Ministry,  but  also  the  consent  of  those  among 
whom  that  authority  was  to  be  exercised.  So  that  although 
ministerial  authority  as  such  was  not  derived  from  the  people, 
yet  the  consent  to  have  that  authority  exercised  among  them 
in  the  particular  case  was  derived  from  them,  or  from  those 
who  spoke  for  them.  And  whereas  when  the  Mission  was 
solely  from  Episcopal  designation,  the  support  of  those  who 
were  sent  was  the  Episcopal  care ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  when 
the  ministry  acquired  a  settled  residence  they  derived  their 


ACCESSION    TO    THE    JAMAICA    TARISH.  33 

support  no  longer  directly  from  the   Bishop,   but  from  the 
place  wherein  they  were  settled.* 

Considering  the  circumstances  of  the  settlement  of  this 
Country,  the  comparatively  small  number  of  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  their  wide  dispersion  throughout  the 
Colonies,  their  non-conforming,  and  also  heathen,  surround- 
ings, and  the  absence  of  any  resident  Bishop  among  them,  it 
seems  natural  that  the  Missionary  idea  should  preponderate; 
and  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  English  Episcopate  in  this 
Country  (in  effect  devolved  upon  the  Bishop  of  London) 
should  resemble  in  its  exercise  that  of  those  early  Bishops  who 
sent  out  their  Clergy  to  preach  to  the  people  as  they  saw 
occasion.  To  aid  in  the  effective  exercise  of  this  jurisdiction, 
and  to  provide  some  measure  of  that  support  for  which  under 
the  earlier  arrangement  the  Bishop  would  have  been  respon- 
sible, there  was  organized  in  1701  the  Society  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  parts  (of  which  mention  has  so 
often  been,  and  so  often  must  be,  made)  which  comprised 
nearly  all  the  Bishops,  and  many  wealthy  and  influential  lay- 
men of  the  Church  of  England ;  and  thus  the  analogy  between 
the  mission  of  the  Society,  and  the  Episcopal  mission  of 
earlier  times  became  most  manifest.  Still  the  parochial  idea 
was  so  far  recognized  as  that  the  Missionaries  of  the  Society 
were  ordinarily  sent  into  those  places  only  where  Churchmen 
had  grouped  themselves  together,  either  with  a  Church  build- 
ing, or  in  the  hope  and  effort  to  attain  one.  The  appointment 
of  a  Missionary  of  the  Society,  however,  while  it  ordinarily 
presupposed  some  organization  or  association  among  the  peo- 
ple to  whom  he  was  sent,  did  not  so  much  establish  him  in 
properly  parochial  relations,  as  it  helped  to  sustain  him  in 
such  relations  as  might  be  established  in  a  manner  provided 

4.  Cf.  Burns'  Ecclesiastical  Law:  Tit.  Parish,  III,  60.  Ed.  Lon- 
don, 1809.  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Intr.,  pp.  79-81.  Ed.  N.  Y., 
1836. 


34  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

by  the  law,  or  as  the  contract  of  the  parties  concerned  might 
settle.  Hence  it  was  that  many  of  those  sent  by  the  Society 
were  not  merely  Missionaries,  but  also  Rectors,  or  Ministers 
put  in  charge  of  particular  parishes,  in  accordance  with  the 
agreement  made  or  call  given  by  such  parishes  or  their  cor- 
porate representatives.  Here  then  were  parishes  growing  up 
in  the  new  Country  much  in  the  same  way  and  largely  from 
the  same  causes  as  had  been  operative  in  the  old  Country; 
and  so  far  as  the  Church  congregations  were  concerned,  it 
was  antecedently  probable  that  their  proceedings  in  the  forma- 
tion of  parishes  and  calling  and  settling  of  Ministers  would  be 
modelled  upon  the  pattern  prescribed  by  the  English  law  — 
although  such  proceedings  would  necessarily  be  modified  ac- 
cording to  the  circumstances  of  the  residence  of  those  who 
carried  them  on. 

In  the  matter  of  the  settlement  in  a  parish  of  a  Rector  or 
Minister  in  charge,  the  provisions  of  the  English  Ecclesiastical 
law  could  not  be  entirely  complied  with  in  any  case,  and  in 
most  cases  could  only  be  approximated.  Those  provisions 
were  of  a  very  precise  and  formal  character.  The  substance 
was  a  presentation  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  the  right  of 
designation  of  the  Clergyman  who  was  to  be  settled  in  the 
parish,  and  the  acceptance  of  that  presentation  by  those  who 
had  under  the  law  the  right  of  appointment  of  him  who  had 
been  presented.  No  doubt  in  the  simplicity  of  earlier  days  all 
this  would  be  accomplished  by  the  designation  of  the  lord  of 
the  Manor  or  other  person  having  the  legal  right  to  present, 
and  the  appointment  by  the  Bishop  of  the  person  designated. 
But  the  passing  of  time  produced  a  great  extension  of  technical 
formalities  designed  to  uphold  both  the  rights  of  the  patron, 
and  the  laws  of  Church  and  State  in  which  those  rights  were 
founded.  The  Clergyman  who  was  duly  presented  had  the 
right  to  the  position  for  which  he  was  named,  but  he  had 
thereby  no  right  in  it.     The  right  in  it  had  to  be  secured  by 


ACCESSION    TO    THE    JAMAICA    PARISH.  35 

the  approval  of  the  authorities :  and  as  this  right  was  of  two 
kinds,  it  was  not  completely  established  without  a  double 
process;  whereby,  in  the  first  place,  the  person  presented  was 
put  in  charge  of  the  spiritualities,  or  the  cure  of  souls  — 
which  was  termed  Collation  or  Institution;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  was  further  endued  with  the  legal  capacity  of  receiving 
and  administering  the  temporalities,  or  the  recovery  and  dis- 
position of  the  property  connected  with  the  position  —  which 
was  termed  Induction. 

The  right  of  presentation  which  belonged  in  the  old  Country 
to  the  lord  of  the  Manor  or  others  in  analogous  position,  was 
the  same  kind  of  right  as  belonged  in  the  new  Country  to 
those  who  by  voluntary  association  had  grouped  themselves 
into  a  parochial  organization,  or  in  accordance  with  legal 
provisions  represented  such  grouping  —  the  people,  or  their 
corporate  representatives,  holding  the  place  of  the  Patron  of 
the  living.  This  presentation  in  England  being  made  to  the 
Episcopal  authority,  there  followed  by  that  authority  the  In- 
stitution. And  this  although  an  act  of  spiritual  authority  for 
spiritual  ends,  yet  so  far  included  temporalities  as  to  make 
the  recipient  capable  of  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  pro- 
vision for  his  support  lawfully  attendant  upon  his  position.^ 

5.  Between  Institution  and  Collation,  there  are  certain  technical  dis- 
tinctions applicable  in  subsequent  contingencies,  but  so  far  as  the 
act  itself  is  concerned  there  is  no  difference.  Collation  is  the  proper 
word  where  the  living  is  in  the  gift  of  the  Bishop  himself,  and  ap- 
plies to  his  act  of  instituting  his  own  nominee.  Where  a  patron 
presents  to  the  Bishop,  the  Bishop  institutes  the  person  presented. 
Where  the  Bishop  presents  his  own  Qerk,  he  collates  him  —  that  is 
to  say  he  institutes  him  of  his  own  motion  without  formal  presenta- 
tion. (Burns'  Ecclesiastical  Law  I,  164,  171.)  The  apparently  inter- 
changeable use  of  these  terms  of  Collation  and  Institution  in  Ecclesi- 
astical documents  in  the  Colonies,  as  where  a  Governor  collates,  when 
he  means  to  institute;  or  both  collates  and  institutes,  is  a  little  con- 
fusing. It  is  perhaps  in  part  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
the    Royal    Instructions    authorizing    the    Governor    to    do    what    the 


36  MEMOIR    OK    BISHOP    SEABUKY. 

After  Institution,  however,  "  the  Clerk  is  not  complete  In- 
cumbent, till  Induction,  or  as  the  Canon  law  calls  it,  corporal 
possession.  For  by  this  it  is  that  he  becomes  seised  of  the 
temporalities  of  the  Church,  so  as  to  have  power  to  grant 
iicin  or  sue  for  them;"  and  he  who  has  received  the  mandate 
to  induct  the  instituted  Clerk  takes  his  hand  and  lays  it  on  the 
i.cy  or  ring-  of  the  Church  door,  and  declares  that  by  virtue 
•jf  the  mandate  he  inducts  him  ''  into  the  real,  actual  and  cor- 
poral possession  of  the  Church  of  —  with  all  the  rights, 
profits  and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging."  ^ 

And  by  acts  of  Parliament  it  was  provided  that  every  Incum- 
bent was  to  assent  to  the  Articles  of  Religion,  and  publicly  in 
the  Church  read  the  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer,  and  declare 
his  assent  thereto  in  a  form  which  covered  also  the  Sacra- 
ments and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church ;  and  that 
he  should  receive  a  certificate  of  such  conformity  under  the 
hand  and  seal  of  the  Archbishop,  Bishop  or  Ordinary  of  the 
Diocese.'' 

Bishop  would  have  done  in  England,  both  terms  were  used  by  the 
Governor  so  as  to  cover  both  kinds  of  cases  in  which  the  Bishop  might 
act. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  American  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
provides  (for  permissive  use)  an  "Office  of  Institution,"  which  is  a 
formal  authorization  of  a  Presbyter  by  the  Bishop  to  enter  upon  the 
cure  of  souls  in  a  parish  or  Church  to  which  he  has  been  legally 
admitted.  Thus  the  process  in  our  practice  seems  to  be  transposed 
the  legal  contract  of  the  Clergyman  with  the  Vestry  being  equiva- 
lent to  Presentation  and  Induction  under  the  English  system,  and 
the  spiritual  authorization  of  Institution  following  Induction  instead 
of  preceding  it  as  in  that  system.  The  delivery  of  the  keys  of  the 
Church  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  practice  at  an  Induction: 
but  they  are  explicitly  received  as  pledges  of  Institution,  and  with 
the  promise  of  a  faithful   Pastorate. 

6.  Gibson's  Codex  Tit.  XXXIV.  Cap.  IX :  vol.  II,  pp.  859-^0.  Ed, 
London,  1713. 

7.  lb.  II,  861-23. 


ACCESSION    TO    THE    JAMAICA    PARISH.  37 

The  observance  in  the  Colonies  of  all  the  legal  provisions 
which  have  now  been  partially  recounted  was  not,  as  has  been 
said,  practicable.  Yet  some  provisions  were  fulfilled,  such  as 
the  certifying  by  the  Bishop  of  the  promise  of  conformity, 
which  could  be  made  at  the  time  of  ordination ;  and  the  public 
reading  of  the  prayers,  and  declaration  of  assent  on  the  part 
of  the  Clergyman  newly  admitted  to  his  cure.  And  other 
provisions  were  observed  in  principle,  if  not  in  form.  The 
right  of  choice  on  the  part  of  the  parish,  or  the  legal  represent- 
atives of  the  people,  was  not  only  recognized,  but  in  New  York 
Province  the  endeavour  was  made  to  provide  by  law  for  its 
exercise.  And  it  was  the  care  of  the  Kings,  in  their  role  of 
Nursing  Fathers  to  obviate  the  want  of  a  resident  Bishop  as 
far  as  they  could,  by  instructing  the  Governors  whom  they 
commissioned,  to  exercise  the  Episcopal  right  of  appointment, 
and  to  some  extent,  in  respect  at  least  of  exterior  jurisdic- 
tion, the  rights  of  oversight  and  discipline.  In  1686,  for 
example,  James  II  authorizes  and  empowers  Governor  Dongan 
to  collate  any  person  in  any  Church  or  Chapel,  or  other 
Ecclesiastical  Benefice  as  often  as  such  shall  happen  to  be 
void  in  the  Province  of  New  York  and  dependent  Territories ; 
and  to  supply  the  best  means  for  removing  such  as  appear  to 
give  scandal  by  their  doctrine  or  manners.^ 

But  remedies  are  proverbially  worse  sometimes  than  dis- 
eases, and  it  is  seriously  to  be  questioned  whether  the  means 
taken  in  the  Province  of  New  York  to  uphold  by  statute  the 
right  of  choice  or  presentation  to  a  parish,  were  not  produc- 
tive in  some  respects  of  more  harm  than  good. 

New  York  being  in  Colonial  times  of  the  nature  of  a  Pro- 
vincial Establishment,  it  would  appear  that  its  constitution 
depended  upon  the  Commissions  or  Instructions  of  its  Gov- 
ernors, and  that  its  legislative  power,  so  exercised  as  not  to 

8.  Ecclesiastical  Records  of  the  State  of  New  York  (compiled  by 
Hugh  Hastings,  State  Historian),  vol.  H,  p.  918, 


38  MEMOIR   OF    EISIIOP    SEABURY. 

be  repus^nant  to  the  laws  of  England,  resided  in  the  Provincial 
Assembly,  in  which  an  elective  House  of  Representatives  acted 
in  connection  with  the  Governor  and  his  Council." 

In  the  year  1693,  Governor  Fletcher,  reporting  to  England, 
says  of  the  Provincial  Legislature  — "  I  have  gott  them  to 
settle  a  fund  for  a  Ministry  in  the  City  of  New  York  and 
three  more  Countys  which  could  never  be  obtained  before, 
being  a  mixt  people  and  of  different  perswasions  in  re- 
ligion." ^^ 

The  Act  referred  to  is  entitled  "  An  Act  for  settling  a  Min- 
istry, and  raising  a  maintenance  for  them  in  the  City  of  New 
York,  County  of  Richmond,  Westchester  and  Queens  County 
passed  Sept.  22,  1693 ;"  and  it  provides  "  that  in  each  of  the 
respective  Cities  and  Counties  hereafter  mentioned  and  ex- 
pressed, there  shall  be  called,  inducted,^^  and  established,  a 
good  sufficient  Protestant  Minister,  to  officiate,  and  have  the 
cure  of  souls;"  in  the  City  of  New  York,  one;  in  the  County 
of  Richmond,  one;  in  the  County  of  Westchester,  two;  in  the 
County  of  Queens,  two  —  one  for  Jamaica  and  adjacent  towns 
and  farms,  the  other  for  Hempstead  and  adjacent  towns  and 
farms;  that  there  should  be  annually  assessed,  levied  and  paid, 
for  the  maintenance  of  these  Ministers,  in  New  York  one 
hundred  pounds;  Westchester,  one  hundred  (fifty  for  each  of 
two);  Richmond,  forty;  Queens,  one  hundred  and  twenty 
(sixty  for  each  of  two)  ;  that  ten  Vestrymen  and  two  Church 
Wardens  were  to  be  annually  chosen  by  the  Freeholders ;  that 
the  Justices  and  the  Vestrymen  were  to  lay  the  tax  for  the 
Minister  and  poor  of  their  respective  places ;  that  the  Church 

9.  Blackstone's  Commentaries.     Intro.,  p.  T].    Ed.  N.  Y.,  1836. 

10.  New  York  Ecclesiastical  Records,  ut  supr.  II,  1084. 

11.  Observe  the  survival  of  these  terms  in  the  Act  of  1813  of  the 
Legislature  of  New  York  in  regard  to  Incorporation  of  Churches, 
wherein  the  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  are  empowered  to  "  call  and 
induct"  a  Rector,  as  often  as  there  shall  be  a  vacancy. 


ACCESSION   TO   THE   JAMAICA   PARISH.  39 

Wardens  were  to  pay  the  maintenance  to  the  Ministers;  that 
each  of  the  Ministers  was  to  be  called  by  the  respective  Vestry- 
men and  Church  Wardens ;  and  that  former  agreements  with 
Ministers  throughout  the  Province  were  not  to  be  affected  by 
the  Act.i2 

Whatever  Fletcher's  influence  may  have  been  in  procuring 
the  enactment  of  this  law,  it  was  insufficient  to  induce  the 
lower  House  to  consent  to  an  Amendment  which  he  proposed 
to  it;  which  consisted  in  inserting,  after  the  direction  that  the 
Ministers  should  be  called  by  the  Vestrymen  and  Church 
Wardens,  the  provision  that  those  so  called  be  "  presented  to 
the  Governor  to  be  approved  and  collated."  This  amendment 
they  refused  to  make  upon  his  request :  for  the  which  he  rates 
them  very  soundly;  faulting  them  for  positively  denying  his 
proposed  amendment  though  only  of  "  three  or  four  words," 
and  "  very  immaterial,"  and  saying,  "  I  must  take  leave  to 
tell  you,  if  you  seem  to  understand  by  these  words  (calling 
the  Minister)  that  none  can  serve  without  your  collation  or 
establishment,  you  are  far  mistaken;  for  I  have  the  power  of 
collating  or  suspending  any  Minister  in  my  government  by 
their  Majesties  letters  patents;  and  while  I  stay  in  the  gov- 
ernment I  will  take  care  that  neither  heresy,  sedition,  schism 
nor  rebellion  be  preached  amongst  you,  nor  vice  and  profanity 
encouraged."  ^^ 

This  episode  indicates  very  clearly  the  different  views  which 
might  be  taken  as  to  the  interpretation  of  this  Statute,  and  as 
to  the  extent  of  the  rights  which  it  conferred  upon  the  Vest- 
ries for  which  it  provided;  and  the  history  of  the  Jamaica 
Parish  at  least  is  the  history  of  disputes,  litigated  and  un- 
litigated,  resulting  in  large  part  from  its  adoption.  The  Act 
was  absolutely  vicious  in  principle  as  providing  for  the  taxa- 
tion of  people  whether  Churchmen  or  Dissenters  for  the  sup- 

12.  New  York  Ecclesiastical  Records,  ut  snpr.  II,  1076-9. 

13.  Ibid.,  II,  1075-6. 


40  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

])ort  of  a  ]\liiiistry  which  was  no  doubt  originally  intended 
to  be  a  Church  of  England  Ministry ;  and  it  was  so  faulty 
in  its  wording  as  not  to  make  that  intention  clear  beyond 
cavil,  but  on  the  other  hand  to  give  ground  for  argument 
that  dissenting  Ministers  were  within  its  provisions.  The 
House  of  Representatives  which  Fletcher  *^  gott  "  to  pass  it, 
was  no  doubt  shrewd  enough  to  see  the  bearing  of  the  amend- 
ment which  he  afterwards  proposed  to  it,  thinking  to  make  his 
original  intent  more  clearly  expressed  in  it;  and  their  refusal 
showed  what  they  for  their  part  designed  in  passing  it.  The 
Act  required  the  election  of  Vestries  after  the  manner  of 
civil  elections ;  endued  them  with  power  to  call  Ministers ;  and 
provided  for  raising  the  maintenance  by  civil  taxes  collectible 
by  civil  process.  Hence  a  Vestry  elected  by  v^hat  Fletcher 
called  "  a  mixt  people  and  of  different  perswasions  in  re- 
ligion," would  presumably  be  equally  "  mixt,"  and  the  person 
called  might  be  of  any  of  the  "  different  perswasions,"  as  the 
Dissenters  were  not  slow  to  urge.  On  the  other  hand  it  was 
insisted  that  the  Minister  to  be  called  must  be,  in  the  language 
of  the  Act,  "  a  good  sufficient  Protestant  Minister,"  and  that 
these  adjectives  were  not  applicable  to  one  who  was  not  duly 
qualified  by  the  Church's  Ordination  and  the  corresponding 
certificate  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  The  contention  that  a 
good  sufficient  Protestant  Minister  meant  a  Minister  of  the 
Church  of  England,  some  Churchmen  of  the  present  day 
might  be  loath  to  make,  but  it  was  entirely  natural  then,  in 
view  of  the  common  enough  practice  of  discriminating  the 
Church  of  England  from  the  Church  of  Rome  by  calling  it 
the  Protestant  Church.  In  the  Charter  of  Trinity  Church, 
New  York,  for  example,  are  several  instances  of  this  usage ; 
the  "  good  sufficient  Protestant  Minister  "  of  the  Act  of  1693, 
being  quoted  in  connection  with  provision  for  worship  "  ac- 
cording to  the  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  our  Protestant  Church 
of  England;"  the  Church  building  to  be  dedicated  to  such 


ACCESSION    TO   THE   JAMAICA    PARISH.  4^ 

worship  "  according  to  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England;"  and  the  body  corporate  to  be  named 
*'  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws."  ^*  But 
in  fact  this  meaning  of  the  limitation  was  disputed  by  the 
Dissenters,  who  persistently  claimed  the  control  of  the  Church 
property,  asserted  their  right  to  the  nomination  of  the  Minis- 
ter, or,  failing  that,  endeavoured  to  prevent  the  payment  of 
the  Minister's  dues  for  which  in  several  instances  suit  had  to 
be  brought. 

Notwithstanding  the  determined  claim  of  the  Dissenters, 
however,  that  the  Act  established  their  rights,  it  would  seem 
as  if  they  were  not  always  at  ease  as  to  their  construction  of 
the  Act,  since  they  tried  to  procure  other  legislation  which 
would  be  less  open  to  question.  In  one  of  his  reports  to  Eng- 
land, in  1699,  Governor  Bellomont  says  — "  The  House  of 
Representatives  sent  up  a  bill  to  me  and  the  Council  for  settling 
a  Dissenting  Ministry  .  .  .  but  it  being  contrary  to  His 
Majesty's  instructions,  and  besides  having  been  credibly  in- 
formed that  some  of  these  Ministers  do  hold  strange  er- 
roneous opinions  in  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine,  I  would  not 
give  the  assent  to  that  Bill,  but  rejected  it."  ^^  And  again,  in 
1700,  "  I  find  in  looking  over  my  papers  and  notes,  I  had  for- 
got to  acquaint  your  Lordships  of  a  petition  of  the  Inhabitants 
of  Suffolk  County,  and  another  of  those  of  Queens  County, 
in  this  Province  for  the  settling  of  a  Dissenting  Ministry 
among  them,  ...  I  gave  no  countenance  to  those  Peti- 
tions then  nor  will  I  recommend  them  now.  I  think  the  best 
way  is  to  forget  them."  ^^ 

The  only  thing  in   fact  that  hindered  the  appointment  of 

14.  Charter  Trinity   Church ;    New    York  Ecclesiastical   Records,   ut 
stipr.  II,  1 136. 

15.  New  York  Ecclesiastical  Records,  ut  supr.  II,  1331. 

16.  Ibid.  II,  1392-3. 


42  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABUKY. 

Dissenting  Ministers  under  the  Act,  when  the  Dissenters  were 
a  majority  in  the  Vestry,  was  that  the  Governors  constantly 
took  the  ground  that  such  a  course  was  contrary  to  their  in- 
structions from  the  Crown,  and  therefore  could  not  be  per- 
mitted. These  Instructions  were  given  with  particularity  in 
the  earliest  history  of  the  Province,  and  several  times  re- 
peated; and,  even  if  not  so  specific  in  the  case  of  every  Gov- 
ernor, would  doubtless  constitute  a  tradition  to  which  each 
in  succession  would  conform.  Those  given  by  William  and 
Mary  to  Governor  Sloughter  show  the  substance  of  the  re- 
quirements as  to  religious  matters ;  and  the  following  extracts 
from  them  will  enable  us  to  understand  the  control  which  the 
Governors  had  and  exercised  over  the  Ecclesiastical  situation. 

"  You  shall  take  care  that  God  Almighty  be  devoutly  and 
duly  served  throughout  your  Government:  The  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  as  it  is  now  established,  read  each  Sunday 
and  Holyday,  and  the  blessed  Sacrament  administered  accord- 
ing to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England ;  You  shall  be  care- 
ful that  the  Churches  already  built  there,  shall  be  well  and 
orderly  kept  and  more  built  as  the  Colony  shall  by  God's  bless- 
ing be  improved ;  and  that  besides  a  competent  maintenance  to 
be  assigned  to  the  Ministers  of  each  Orthodox  Church,  a 
convenient  house  to  be  built  at  the  common  charge  for  each 
Minister,  and  competent  proportion  of  Land  assigned  to  him 
for  a  Glebe  and  exercise  of  his  Industry. 

You  are  to  take  care  that  the  Parishes  be  so  limited  and 
settled  as  you  shall  find  most  convenient  for  the  accomplishing 
this  Good  work. 

Our  Will  and  Pleasure  is.  That  no  Minister  be  preferred  by 
you  to  any  Ecclesiastical  Benefice  in  that  our  Province,  with- 
out a  certificate  from  the  Right  Reverend,  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, of  his  being  conformable  to  the  Doctrine  and  Discipline 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  a  good  life  and  conversion. 

And  if  any  Person  preferred  already  to  a  Benefice  shall 


ACCESSION   TO   THE   JAMAICA    PARISH.  43 

appear  to  3^011  to  give  scandal  either  by  his  Doctrine  or  man-- 
ners  you  are  to  use  the  best  meanes  for  the  removall  of  him, 
and  to  supply  the  vacancy  in  such  manner  as  we  have  di- 
rected. And  also  our  Pleasure  is,  that  in  the  direction  of  all 
Church  affairs,  the  minister  be  admitted  into  the  respective 
Vestrys. 

And  to  the  end  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  of  the  said 
Bishop  of  London  may  take  place  in  that  our  Province  as  far 
as  conveniently  may  be ;  We  do  think  fitt  that  you  give  all 
countenance  and  encouragement  in  the  exercise  of  the  same, 
excepting  only  to  the  collating  to  Benefices,  Granting  Licenses 
for  marriages  and  Probates  of  Wills,  which  we  have  reserved 
to  you  our  Governor,  and  to  the  Commander  in  chief  for  the 
time  being."  ^^ 

Such  was  the  footing  upon  which  the  Governors  stood  in 
reference  to  presentations  made  under  the  law  of  1693 ;  and 
in  view  of  the  history  and  terms  of  this  law  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  understand  either  the  course  pursued  by  the  Dissenters, 
or  the  attitude  of  the  Governors  in  respect  to  it.  The  Dissent- 
ers claimed  rights  under  the  letter  of  the  Statute :  the  Court 
party,  the  Governor  and  the  Churchmen  assumed  to  construe 
the  Statute,  and  to  impart  a  meaning  to  its  literal  terms. 
Their  construction  was  probably  correct,  and  at  any  rate  har- 
monized with  what  had  been  the  original  purpose  of  procur- 
ing the  passage  of  the  Act:  but  it  was  quite  contrary  to  the 
purpose  of  those  who  had  passed  it,  and  who  had  said  in 
it  what  they  intended  for  the  preservation  of  their  previously 
existing  rights.  For  apart  from  this  law  as  interpreted  by 
their  opponents,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Dissenters  were 
wholly  without  justification.  At  least  it  is  true  that  they  were 
originally  in  possession  of  some  buildings  for  purposes  of 
worship  which  had  been  erected  by  general  taxation:  so  that, 

17.  New  York  Ecclesiastical  Records,  lit  super.  II,  991. 


44  MEMOIR   OF    r.ISlIOP    SEABURY. 

with  respect  to  these,  they  first  held  the  position  which  was 
afterwards  held  by  the  Churchmen. 

Upon  the  settlement  of  Jamaica  in  1656  mostly  by  Presby- 
terians and  Independents,  action  was  taken  by  town  authority 
for  the  building  of  meeting  house  and  parsonage.^^  Later 
they  laid  aside  the  plan  of  building  by  town  vote,  and  pro- 
ceeded under  the  Church  Building  Act  of  1699,  "  by  virtue 
of  which  the  Church  was  built  and  distress  made  on  Church- 
men, Quakers  and  Baptists,  people  of  the  Dutch  Congrega- 
tion etc.  promiscuously  for  payment  of  the  rates  toward  the 
same.  The  other  dissenters  who  were  forced  to  comply  were 
very  much  dissatisfied  at  this  procedure  of  the  brethren  and 
many  of  them  appeared  in  the  interest  of  the  Church,  think- 
ing no  way  so  effective  to  defeat  their  adversaries;  and  this 
was  the  beginning  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Jamaica."  ^^ 
The  first  regular  Church  services  appear  to  have  been  in 
1702,  under  Lord  Cornbury's  Government.  Afterwards  in 
1704  he  established  and  inducted  Rev.  Mr.  Urquhart,  and 
upon  the  representation  that  the  Church  and  House  having 
been  built  under  Public  Act  could  belong  to  none  but  the 
Church  of  England,  he  gave  his  warrant  to  dispossess  the 
Dissenters.2<^  In  Newtown  in  1704  was  a  Church  built  and 
lately  repaired  by  tax  levied  on  the  inhabitants,  which,  for- 
merly possessed  by  a  dissenting  Minister,  was  now  occupied 
by  Mr.  Urquhart  under  sanction  of  Cornbury.  Flushing  had 
no  Church,  being  chiefly  inhabited  by  Quakers.^^ 

The  explanation  of  these  proceedings  given  by  Mr.  Urquhart 
to  Governor  Lovelace  in  1709,  was  that  "  by  virtue  of  an 
Act  of  General  Assembly  of  this  Province,  "  a  Church  "  was 

18.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  5. 

19.  New  York  Documentary  History,  III,  244,  cit.  Onderdonk's 
Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  9. 

20.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.   17. 

21.  Ibid.,  p.  21. 


ACCESSION    TO    THE    JAMAICA    PARISH.  45 

built  at  Jamaica.  .  .  .  It  is  so  called  by  them,  and  a 
very  great  many  of  the  principal  builders  have  always  de- 
clared that  they  intended  it  for  a  Church  of  England.  Be- 
sides, the  very  words  of  the  first  Act  for  settling  the  Min- 
istry itself,  (viz.  "  That  in  each  of  the  respective  cities 
.  .  .  there  shall  be  called,  inducted  and  established  a  good, 
sufficient  Protestant  Minister,  etc.")  can  mean  no  other;  for 
it  was  never  known  that  any  sect  of  dissenters  ever  called 
the  place  appointed  for  the  public  worship  "  a  Church,"  or 
that  they  elected  *'  Church  Wardens "  or  "  Vestrymen,"  or 
that  their  Ministry  ever  received  "  induction,"  as  by  that  Act 
is  particularly  expressed.^^ 

To  this  line  of  argument  the  Dissenters  did  not  easily  recon- 
cile themselves:  and  at  town  meeting  1726-7  a  majority  of 
the  freeholders  voted  that  the  stone  building  or  meeting  house, 
with  the  ground  whereon  it  stands,  now  in  the  occupation 
of  Mr.  Thomas  Poyer  (who  had  been  inducted  in  1710)  be 
granted  in  trust  for  the  town  to  certain  persons  "  some  of  the 
surviving  trustees  by  whom  it  was  built,  to  be  disposed  of 
according  to  the  first  intention  of  the  builders."  On  the 
strength  of  which  vote  '*  the  Presbyterians  brought  suit  for 
the  recovery  of  the  stone  Church,"  ^^  in  which  they  were  suc- 
cessful, and  it  subsequently  remained  in  their  possession.^* 

22.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  27. 

23.  Ibid.,  p.  41. 

24.  The  account  of  this  suit  given  by  Governor  Cosby  to  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle  in  a  letter  of  May  3,  1733,  affords  interesting  reading 
and  illustrates  the  contemporaneous  Church  feeling  on  the  subject, 
as  may  appear  from  the  following  extract  given  by  Onderdonk  in 
his  Antiquities  of  the  Parish  Church  of  Jamaica  (pp.  44-5). 

"  Some  years  ago  the  dissenters  of  the  parish  of  Jamaica  brought 
an  ejectment  against  the  Church  minister  for  the  Church  he  preached 
in  and  was  possessed  of.  Wlien  the  trial  came  on,  the  defendant's 
counsel  demurred  to  the  plaintiff's  evidence.  Morris,  the  Chief  Jus- 
tice, desired  them  to  waive  the  demurrer,  telling  them  that  if  the  jury 


46  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

The  Cliurchincn  were  thus  left  in  their  turn  without  a  place 
of  worship,  but  instead  of  seeking  to  regain  that  which  they 
had  lost  they  proceeded  to  build  a  new  Church  with  such 
help  as  they  could  obtain.  In  the  meantime  they  worshipped 
in  the  Town  Hall  under  Rev.  Mr.  Colgan  who  had  been 
inducted  by  Governor  Cosby  in  1732-3,  and  the  new  Church 
was  opened  April  5,  1734,  under  the  name  of  Grace  Church; 
and  in  1735  a  Church  was  also  erected  at  Newtown.'^ 

It  seems  plain  that  whatever  justification  there  might  have 
been  for  the  claim  of  the  Dissenters  to  the  old  Church,  there 
could  be  none  to  the  new  Church  which  had  been  built  by 
voluntary  contributions  for  Church  of  England  use,  except 
such  as  might  be  based  upon  the  law  of  1693.  This  ground, 
however,  they  insatiably  sought  to  occupy;  and  after  the  de- 
cease of  Mr.  Colgan  in  1755  the  ''  mixt "  vestry  elected  by 
"  a  mixt  people,"  in  which  the  Dissenters  were  a  majority, 
proceeded  to  present  to  the  Governor,  Sir  Charles  Hardy, 
one  Mr.  Simon  Horton,  a  dissenting  teacher,  for  induction 
into  Grace  Church.  "  But  the  Governor,  in  obedience  to  his 
instructions  from  his  Majesty,  would  not  admit  him  into  that 
cure,  because  he  could  not  produce  a  certificate  under  the 
Episcopal  seal  of  the  Bishop  of  London  of  his  conformity  to 

found  for  the  plaintiff  he  would  grant  the  defendant  a  new  trial. 
The  defendant's  counsel  were  very  unwilling  to  do  it;  but,  however, 
knowing  the  man  and  fearing  the  worst  from  him  if  they  refused, 
did  consent,  and  the  jury  found  for  the  plaintiff.  The  defendant's 
counsel  moved,  the  next  term  before  judgment,  for  a  new  trial,  and 
urged  his  promise.  He  denied  at  first  that  he  gave  any;  but,  when 
they  offered  to  make  oath  of  it,  he  said  a  rash  promise  ought  not  to 
be  kept,  and  never  would  grant  them  a  new  trial ;  whereby  they  lost 
their  Church,  and  the  dissenters  have  ever  since  had  it.  It  is  talked, 
and  believed  too,  that  he  was  bribed  to  it;  but,  as  I  have  had  no 
proof  offered  me,  I  have  made  no  inquiry  about  it.  His  partiality, 
however,  is  evident." 

25.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  pp.  51-54- 


ACCESSION    TO   THE   JAMAICA    TARISH.  47 

the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England;  and  when  no  person 
thus  quaHfied,  had  been  presented  to  the  Governor  after  more 
than  six  months,  His  Excellency  was  pleased  to  collate  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Samuel  Seabury,  Jr.,  Missionary  at  New  Brunswick, 
to  the  cure  of  the  Church  at  Jamaica  town."  -^  That  this 
appointment  was  in  accordance  with  the  desire  of  the  major 
part  of  the  Congregation  in  regular  attendance  upon  the  serv- 
ices of  the  Church  is  understood  to  have  been  the  case,  the 
tradition  being  that  the  Governor  would  not  act  until  such 
desire  had  been  expressed. 

The  Instrument  by  which  the  settlement  was  made  one 
would  expect  to  have  declared,  or  ordered,  the  Induction  of 
the  Clergyman  designated.  This  had  been  very  distinctly  ex- 
pressed in  the  case  of  Mr.  Colgan,  the  predecessor  of  Mr. 
Seabury,  by  Governor  Cosby,  who  ordered  him  to  be  collated 
and  inducted  into  the  real,  actual  and  corporal  possession  of 
the  Church,  zvith  all  its  rights  and  appurtenances;  ^^  but  Hardy, 
in  the  present  case,  uses  the  terms  "  collate,  institute,  and  es- 
tablish," instead.  The  reason  for  this  is  not  apparent.  It  is 
possible  that  in  view  of  existing  sensitiveness  in  regard  to 
the  matter  of  temporalities,  he  thought  it  more  prudent  to 
use  the  words  collate  and  institute  which  related  to  the 
spiritualities,  and  to  trust  to  the  efficacy  of  the  additional  word 
establish,  to  secure  to  the  Clergyman  appointed  any  such 
temporalities  as  might  happen  to  have  remained  unappropriated 
by  the  dissenting  claimants.  The  original  document  reads  as 
follows : 

**  I,  Sir  Charles  Hardy,  Knight,  Captain-General,  and  Gov- 
ernor-in-chief, in  and  over  the  Province  of  New  York  and 
the  territories  depending  thereon,  in  America,  and  Vice-Ad- 
miral  of  the  same,  do,  in  pursuance  of  the  power  devolved 

26.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  57. 

27.  Ibid.,  p.  48. 


48  MEMOIR   OF    r.ISIIOP    SEABURY. 

upon  me,  collate,  institute  and  establish  you,  Samuel  Sea- 
bury,  Jr.,  minister  of  the  parish  church  of  Jamaica,  in  Queens 
County,  on  Nassau  Island  (commonly  called  Grace  Church), 
and  the  adjacent  towns  and  farms  thereunto  belonging,  to 
have  the  care  of  the  souls  of  the  parishioners  of  the  said 
parish  church,  towns  and  farms,  and  take  your  care  and  mine. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  the  prerogative  seal  of  the  Pro- 
vince of  New  York,  the  12th.  day  of  January,  1757. 

L.  s.  Charles  Hardy." 

The  compliance  on  the  part  of  the  person  appointed  with 
all  the  Statutory  requirements  made  of  him  appears  to  have 
been  scrupulously  exact,  as  is  evidenced  by  a  document  signed 
by  S.  Clowes,  Junr.,  and  William  Sherlock,  attesting  his  pro- 
fession of  conformity  as  certified  by  the  Bishop  of  London, 
his  assent  to  the  Articles,  and  Rites  and  Ceremonies,  his 
public  reading  of  the  required  Services,  etc.^^ 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  process  of  accession  to  the 
parish  had  involved  much  trouble  to  the  Parson  himself.-'* 
As  a  resident,  now,  for  some  months,  either  in  Jamaica  or 
the  neighbouring  village  of  Newtown,  he  would  doubtless  be 
familiar  with  the  disputes  which  appear  to  have  developed 
immediately  upon  the  decease  of  Colgan,  the  former  Incum- 
bent. Dr.  Chandler  of  New  Jersey,  and  other  Missionaries 
of  the  Society  had  agreed  to  take  care  of  the  Church,  of- 
ficiating in  turn  until  the  disputes  should  subside,  and  a  new 
appointment  to  the  cure  be  made.     He  would  naturally  be 

28.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  56. 

29.  I  am  not  informed  as  to  the  date  of  his  entry  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duties.  Mr.  Henry  Onderdonk,  Jr.,  in  a  note  from 
Jamaica,  Sept.  20,  1879,  tells  me  of  a  tradition  in  that  place  that  he 
commenced  services  there  on  Easter  Day,  1757;  but  he  refers  to 
Hawks  and  Perry's  Connecticut  Church  Documents  (I,  325)  as  stat- 
ing that  he  was  inducted  January  12,  1757.  There  is,  however,  noth- 
ing necessarily  contradictory  between  the  tradition  and  this  statement, 


ACCESSION    TO    THE    JAMAICA    PARISH.  49 

aware  of  this  agreement,  and  perhaps  partaker  in  it.  He 
would  be  more  or  less  known  to  the  inhabitants  and  cog- 
nizant of  the  position  of  affairs:  and  so  far  as  I  am  aware 
there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  there  was  in  any  quarter 
a  personal  opposition  to  him;  though  there  might  have  been 
among  the  attendants  at  the  Church  services  some  who 
had  dissenting  sympathies,  or  who  perhaps  were  personally 
addicted  to  Horton.  But  the  pushing  of  Horton  for  the 
place,  and  the  whole  movement,  seem  to  have  been  outside 
the  Church  congregation,  and  indicate  an  organized  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  dissenting  majority  of  the  legal  Vestry  to 
to  procure  for  the  dissenting  interest  in  the  Community  the 
control  of  the  new  Church,  as  the  old  Church  had  already 
been  secured  for  that  interest.  This  effort  happily  was  unsuc- 
cessful; and  though  there  were  still  some  unsettled  questions 
which  we  may  meet  later,  yet,  so  far  as  the  possession  of  the 
Church  and  the  choice  of  its  Incumbent  were  concerned,  the 
effort  seems  to  have  been  the  last  in  the  proceedings  which 
have  now  been  reviewed. 

It  has  been  one  object  of  this  review,  as  already  intimated, 
to  contribute  something  to  the  better  understanding  of  the 
position  of  the  Provincial  Clergy  in  the  complicated  Ecclesi- 

as  he  might  have  actually  begun  services  some  time  after  his  formal 
Induction.  The  reference  to  his  "  Induction  "  as  of  January  12,  1757, 
seems  to  be  inaccurate.  That  is  the  date  of  Hardy's  letter  in  which, 
as  above  observed,  he  does  not  use  the  word  "  Induction " ;  though 
it  is  possible  that  a  formal  Induction  might  have  followed  the  Gov- 
ernor's Institution,  as  indeed  it  would  have  been  orderly  that  it 
should.  In  that  case,  however,  it  should  have  been  later  than  January 
I2th.  Mr.  Onderdonk  further  remarks — "The  Mandate  for  his  In- 
duction and  certificate  of  its  performance  must  be  recorded  in  the 
Secretary  of  State's  Office,  Albany:  but  being  in  Latin  none  of  the 
clerks  were  competent  to  the  task  of  copying  it."  The  curious  reader 
who  is  familiar  with  that  tongue  is  referred  to  that  Office  for  further 
information. 


50  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

astical  system  in  which  they  were  involved.  But  the  sketch 
has,  moreover,  a  certain  significance  in  its  bearing  upon  po- 
htical  questions  which  engaged  the  interest  of  the  subject 
of  our  story  at  a  somewhat  later  period  in  his  life.  The 
Jamaica  controversy  in  itself  was  narrow  and  merely  local. 
But  men  took  their  sides  in  it  nevertheless  on  principle ;  and 
the  principles  on  which  they  stood  were  capable  of  being  ap- 
plied in  a  wider  sphere,  and  in  matters  of  larger  interest  than 
such  as  pertained  to  parochial  difficulties,  and  in  fact  were 
afterwards  so  applied.  On  one  side  we  have  seen  men  de- 
voted to  the  maintenance  of  laws  which  they  thought  were 
being  perversely  evaded  or  broken:  on  the  other  side  we 
have  found  men  deeply  conscious  of  rights  which  those  in 
authority  seemed  to  them  to  be  tyranically  overriding  with 
laws  and  interpretations  of  laws.  But  the  same  thing  was, 
in  one  way  or  other,  taking  place  in  other  Colonies;  and 
by  degrees  this  was  producing  the  state  of  mind  which  led 
men  into  more  and  more  sharply  defined  parties  for  and 
against  Government.  And  as  the  Churchmen,  both  from  pre- 
disposition and  interest  were  apt  to  be  found  in  all  those 
issues  on  the  Government  side,  this  tended  to  widen  the  breach 
between  them  and  the  dissenters  who  were  the  preponderating 
influence  in  many  quarters  in  the  popular  party,  and  who  were 
hereditarily  among  the  aggrieved,  and  were  nothing  if  not 
solicitous  for  their  rights.  This  again  intensified  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  introduction  of  the  Episcopate,  the  coming  of  which 
seemed  likely  to  strengthen  influences  which,  in  the  view  of  the 
opponents,  were  already  sufficiently  strong.  And  so  the  in- 
terests of  the  Church  became  entangled  with  the  more  strictly 
political  issues  of  the  times,  and  the  movements  of  Church- 
men in  behalf  of  a  resident  Episcopacy  were  regarded  with 
jealous  apprehension,  and  subjected,  directly  and  indirectly, 
to  constant  and  determined  opposition,  some  evidences  of 
which  will  appear  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTER  V. 
RESIDENCE  IN  JAMAICA. 

1757-1766. 

THE  Rector  of  Grace  Church  would  appear  to  have 
entered  upon  his  pastoral  work  in  Jamaica  under 
circumstances  very  favourable  to  his  successful 
prosecution  of  it,  and  very  conducive  to  his  own  personal  hap- 
piness. Being  twenty-eight  years  of  age  and  of  a  good  con- 
stitution, he  rejoiced  in  youth,  strength  and  health.  He  pos- 
sessed a  devout  and  earnest  spirit,  and  an  excellent  mental 
capacity  and  equipment  for  the  duties  of  his  calling.  He  had 
overcome  many  and  serious  obstacles  in  the  attainment  of  a 
position  which,  by  comparison  with  other  positions  of  the 
same  kind  at  that  period,  appears  to  have  had  a  recognized 
eminence.  He  had  a  home  of  his  own,  situated  upon  a  good 
farm,  of  a  sufficient  but  not  burdensome  extent,  and  within 
easy  reach  of  his  Church.  He  had  the  incomparable  satisfac- 
tion of  having  a  congenial  wife  who  graciously  presided  over 
the  conduct  and  hospitalities  of  his  home.  He  lived  within 
a  short  distance  from  his  father  and  other  relatives  and  friends 
at  Hempstead,  and  within  about  equal  distance  from  almost 
equally  agreeable  associations  in  New  York.  He  had  also 
reasonable  expectations  of  the  moral  support  of  the  people 
over  whom  he  was  appointed,  and  of  such  cordial  apprecia- 
tion of  him  on  their  part  as  would  tend  to  make  his  labours 
among  them  agreeable  and  edifying. 

For  all  these  elements  of  happiness  he  was  no  doubt  duly 

51 


52  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEACURY. 

grateful.  There  was,  however,  another  side  to  the  picture; 
and  the  contemplation  of  it  may  well  have  afforded  some 
grounds  of  apprehension  to  his  prudent  foresight;  as  in  the 
retrospect  it  appears  to  us  to  have  been  overcast  with  the 
shadows  of  trouble  to  come.  He  found  in  fact  as  time  went 
on  that  his  worldly  prosperity  was  more  apparent  than  real ; 
and  that  in  his  spiritual  work  in  the  parish  he  was  sore  let 
and  hindered  by  the  apathy  and  indifference  of  some,  and  the 
jealousies  and  discontents  of  others.  On  the  whole  it  would 
seem  that,  with  all  its  compensations,  which  were  many  and 
blessed,  his  incumbency  at  Jamaica  was  not  upon  a  bed  of 
roses.  Yet  adversities  are  not  always  wholly  adverse;  and 
trials  and  troubles  have,  when  rightly  used,  their  resultant 
benefit  in  the  development  of  strength  and  prudence,  and  a 
serenity  of  mind  not  inconsistent  with  an  industrious  energy. 
The  whole  life  at  Jamaica  may  be  well  regarded  as  a  severe 
training  manfully  endured,  and  profitably  completed. 

The  references  which  have  been  made  to  Mr.  Seabury's 
unfortunate  differences  with  his  father-in-law  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  he  entered  upon  the  purchase  of  his  farm  under 
expectations  which  he  had  been  justified  in  entertaining,  but 
his  disappointment  in  which  had  involved  him  in  embarrass- 
ments which  he  had  not  anticipated.  And  while  the  farm 
might  to  some  extent  have  afforded  him  a  means  of  support 
in  his  otherwise  not  very  lucrative  position,  yet  it  is  probable 
that  he  was  from  the  start  hampered  by  debts  which  he  had 
in  good  faith  contracted  in  its  purchase.  The  income  from 
his  parish  might,  if  it  had  been  duly  paid,  have  been  sufficient 
for  the  modest  support  which  was  all  that  could  be  expected 
in  even  the  better  parishes  of  the  period ;  but  it  would  appear 
to  have  been  greater  in  right  than  in  fact:  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  many  a  righteous  man  has  doubtless  realized,  it  is 
not  for  nothing  that  one  experiences  the  Psalmist's  promised 
semblance  of  the  fruitful  vine  upon  the  walls  of  his  house. 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA.  53 

Of  the  seven  children  of  his  marriage  five  were  born  within 
the  nine  years  of  his  residence  at  Jamaica.  It  is  perhaps  not 
remarkable  that  he  should  sometimes  have  alluded  feelingly 
to  the  expenses  of  a  large  and  growing  family. 

From  the  best  estimate  which  I  am  able  to  make,  the  income 
to  which  the  Incumbent  of  Jamaica,  with  its  "  adjacent  towns 
and  farms,"  was  entitled  must  have  been  equal  to  about  four 
hundred  dollars  per  annum  of  our  money.  This  is  counting 
the  stipend  from  the  Venerable  Society  at  £50  sterling,  equal 
to  about  $250,  and  the  salary  from  the  parish  at  £60  currency, 
equal  perhaps  to  $150.  It  will  be  remembered  that,  under 
the  act  of  1693,  the  amount  to  be  paid  to  the  support  of 
ministers  in  Queens  County  was  ii20,  of  which  £60  fell  to 
the  share  of  Hempstead,  and  £60  to  Jamaica.  But  whether 
this  sum  would  be  paid  by  the  town  vestry  under  that  law 
after  the  Church  people  had  been  evicted  from  the  old  Church 
building,  and  had  erected  the  new  Church  by  voluntary  sub- 
scription is  doubtful  to  say  the  least,  and  much  more  than 
doubtful  after  the  incorporation  of  Grace  Church  with  a  Vestry 
of  its  own,  distinct  from  the  town  Vestry.  It  may  well  have 
been,  however,  that  the  salary  of  the  Rector  of  Grace  Church 
would  be  understood  to  be  at  the  figure  fixed  by  the  Act,  and 
that  this  amount  would  be  apportioned  between  Jamaica,  New- 
town and  Flushing.  My  father's  notes  state  that  the  sum 
of  £20  was  paid  by  Flushing,  but  give  no  information  as  to 
the  payments  of  Jamaica  and  Newtown.  Supposing  the  same 
undertaking  from  each  of  these,  the  Incumbent  would  have 
the  right  to  about  $150  from  the  Parish:  that  he  always 
got  it  is  more  than  I  am  able  to  affirm. 

Several  years  ago,  in  a  discussion  as  to  the  extent  of  farm 
land  which  could  be  worked  with  profit  (or  without  loss) 
to  the  farmer,  a  publication  appeared  which  attracted  some 
attention,  entitled  '*  Ten  acres  enough ;"  which  was  shortly 
followed  by  a  counterview  of  the  situation,  entitled  "  Five 


54  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

acres  too  much."  What  the  Rector's  experience  would  have 
enabled  him  to  contribute  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  in- 
volved, I  have  no  means  of  knowing.  Whether  he  found  his 
farm  in  itself  unprofitable,  or  was  merely  hindered  by  other 
obligations  from  realizing  any  benefit  from  it;  or  whether 
again  he  began  to  think  it  unlikely  that  he  should  continue 
to  make  his  home  in  Jamaica,  and  that  it  was  wiser  to  be  free 
from  cares  of  permanent  ownership  there;  or  by  whatever 
considerations  influenced,  he  seems  not  to  have  held  the  prop- 
erty longer  than  four  or  five  years.  The  absence  of  any 
traditions  in  regard  to  this  land  holding  experience,  would 
lead  one  to  think  that  it  was  not  among  the  pleasant  memories 
which  in  later  life  he  was  wont  to  recall  in  converse  with  his 
children.  Bishop  Perry,  somewhere  in  his  extraordinarily 
voluminous  historical  and  biographical  contributions,  alludes  in 
his  graceful  way  to  this  farm  as  the  home  centre  of  the  hos- 
pitable and  useful  life  of  the  Rector  of  Jamaica;  and  a  few 
years  ago  there  was  still  pointed  out  to  the  curious  observer 
a  venerable  barn  standing  a  little  way  east  of  the  railway  sta- 
tion, marking  the  site  of  the  farm  and  said  to  have  been  used 
by  him,  although  the  house  which  he  had  occupied  as  a  dwell- 
ing had  given  place  to  another  building  erected  by  a  subse- 
quent owner.^  The  advertisement  for  sale  of  this  property, 
reprinted  by  Mr.  Henry  Onderdonk,  Jr.,  gives  a  good  idea 
of  its  nature  and  extent. 

"  February  i,  1762.  To  be  sold  and  entered  on  when  the 
purchaser  pleases,  a  small  plantation  half  a  mile  east  of 
Jamaica  Village,  on  which  Mr.  Seabury,  Rector  of  the  Church, 
now  lives.  It  contains  twenty-eight  acres  of  good  land,  a 
good  dwelling  house   (one  end  new)    a  genteel  building,  a 

I.  So  stated  by  the  late  Rev.  Beverley  Robinson  Betts,  sometime 
Librarian  of  Columbia  College,  and  a  most  learned  and  careful  An- 
tiquary; New  York  Genealogical  and  Biographical  Record,  April, 
i88q. 


RESIDENCE   IN    JAMAICA.  55 

dry  cellar  under  the  whole  house,  a  well  of  good  water,  new 
barn,  hovel  and  smoke  house.  There  is  a  fine  orchard  that 
makes  fifty  barrels  of  cider;  also  a  screw-press  and  cider  mill 
of  a  new  invention  that  grinds  fifty  bushels  of  apples  in  an 
hour.  Also  fourteen  acres  of  woodland  two  miles  from  the 
farm,  and  eight  acres  of  salt  meadow  that  cuts  twenty  loads 
of  salt  hay.  Apply  to  the  above  said  Samuel  Seabury,  Jr., 
who  will  give  a  good  title."  ^ 

As  already  mentioned  the  Incumbent  of  Grace  Church  was 
both  Rector  of  the  parish  and  Missionary  of  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel.  In  the  latter  capacity  he  reported 
about  twice  a  year  to  the  Secretary,  giving  some  account  of 
his  work  and  of  the  parish  interests.  Several  of  these  reports 
are  contained  in  the  Documentary  History  of  New  York.^ 
There  are  nine  of  these  letters  thus  printed,  ranging  in  date 
from  October  lo,  1759  to  April  17,  1766.  No  allusion  is  made 
in  them  to  the  disputes  referred  to  in  the  last  chapter,  nor 
to  the  Governor's  rejection  of  Mr.  Horton's  presentation. 
Keeping  to  the  matter  of  the  Missionary's  work  among 
the  people  they  report  Baptisms,  and  the  number  of  Communi- 
cants, and  give  general  information  in  regard  to  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Church  in  Jamaica  and  also  in  Flushing  and  New- 
town, neighbouring  places  which  were  under  the  writer's  juris- 
diction as  Rector  and  Missionary.  They  seem  to  indicate  a 
good  deal  of  discouragement  in  regard  to  the  interest  of  the 
people  in  the  Church  in  all  three  of  these  places,  and  constantly 
refer  to  the  influence  of  Quakerism  as  the  chief  cause  of  that 
want  of  interest.  In  five  of  the  nine  letters  this  allusion  is 
made  wnth  earnest  conviction.  In  the  first  he  writes,  "  Flush- 
ing in  the  last  generation  the  ground  seat  of  Quakerism  is  in 

2.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  64.  Mr.  Onder- 
donk  notes  that  "  Mr.  Seabury's  mark  for  his  creatures  is  recorded  in 
the  town  book,  1758,  as  *  a  crop  of  each  ear.' " 

3.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  321-330. 


56  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

this  the  scat  of  infidelity ;  a  transition  how  natural."  In  the 
second  he  writes,  "  Such  is  the  effect  of  the  Deism  and  In- 
fidelity (for  the  spreading  of  which  Quakerism  has  paved  the 
way)  which  have  here  been  propagated  with  the  greatest 
zeal  and  the  most  astonishing  success  that  a  great  indifference 
toward  all  religion  has  taken  place  and  the  too  common  opinion 
seems  to  be  that  they  shall  be  saved  without  the  mediation 
of  Christ  as  well  as  with."  In  the  third  he  is  somewhat  en- 
couraged by  the  attendance  at  Flushing  "  (which  has  ever  been 
the  seat  of  Quakerism  and  Infidelity)  "  *'  of  many  young  peo~ 
pie  of  both  sexes  .  .  .  whose  parents  are  either  Quakers 
or  Deists,"  and  whom  he  allows  to  have  "  behaved  with  great 
decency."  In  the  sixth  he  remarks,  *'  The  cause  of  Infidelity 
in  this  Country  seems  to  have  had  some  early  and  zealous 
advocates  and  the  conduct  of  the  Quakers  has  very  much  fa- 
voured its  increase  .  .  .  hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  in 
those  villages  where  the  Quakers  were  formerly  most  numer- 
ous, there  is  now  the  least  appearance  of  any  religion  at  all." 
And  in  the  eighth  the  same  inference  is  drawn,  with  a  par- 
ticular application  to  the  people  of  Hempstead  who  notwith- 
standing their  ability  had  shown  great  backwardness  in  the 
support  of  their  Minister ;  they  having  "  learned  from  the 
Quakers  to  consider  it  as  a  mark  of  an  avaricious  and  venal 
spirit  for  a  minister  to  receive  anything  of  his  people  by  way 
of  support." 

In  the  seventh  of  these  letters,  of  October  6,  1764,  the  writer 
alludes  to  a  long  visit  of  Mr.  Whitfield  in  the  Colony ;  to  his 
preaching  frequently  in  the  City  and  on  the  Island;  to  his 
having  had  more  influence  than  formerly,  and  his  having  done, 
as  he  fears,  a  great  deal  of  mischief.  The  letter  concludes 
thus :  "  his  tenets  and  method  of  preaching  have  been  adopted 
by  many  of  the  Dissenting  Teachers,  and  this  Town  in  particu- 
lar has  a  continual  I  had  almost  said  a  daily  success  of  strolling 
Preachers  and  Exhorters,  the  poor  Church  of  England  is  on 


RESIDENCE   IN   JAMAICA,  57 

every  occasion  misrepresented  as  Popish  and  as  teaching  her 
members  to  expect  salvation  on  account  of  their  works  and 
deservings.  I  have  in  the  most  moderate  manner  endeavoured 
to  set  these  things  in  their  true  Hght  and  I  think  not  without 
success,  none  of  my  own  people  have  been  led  away  by  them, 
tho'  I  have  not  been  without  apprehensions  on  their  account, 
and  I  hope  that  friendly  disposition  and  mutual  intercourse 
of  good  offices  which  have  always  subsisted  between  the 
Church  people  and  Dissenters  since  I  have  been  settled  here 
and  which  I  have  constantly  endeavoured  to  promote  will  meet 
but  with  little  interruption." 

The  last  letter  of  this  series,  or  rather  the  extract  printed 
from  it  in  the  Documentary  History  is,  in  view  of  its  bearing 
upon  succeeding  developments,  worthy  of  being  reproduced 
in  full. 

"Jamaica,  April  17,  1766. 
ReV^,  Sir: 

We  have  lately  had  a  most  affecting  acct.  of  the  loss  of 
Messrs.  Giles  and  Wilson  the  Society's  Missionaries;  the  ship 
they  were  in  being  wrecked  near  the  entrance  of  Delaware 
Bay  and  only  4  persons  saved  out  of  28,  their  death  is  a 
great  loss  in  the  present  want  of  Clergymen  in  these  Colonies, 
and  indeed  I  believe  one  great  reason  why  so  few  from  this 
Continent  offer  themselves  for  Holy  Orders,  is  because  it  is 
evident  from  experience  that  not  more  than  4  out  of  5  who 
have  gone  from  the  Northern  Colonies  have  returned;  this 
is  an  unanswerable  argument  for  the  absolute  necessity  of 
Bishops  in  the  Colonies.  The  poor  Church  of  England  in 
America  Is  the  only  instance  that  ever  happened  of  an  Episco- 
pal Church  without  a  Bishop  and  In  which  no  Orders  could 
be  obtained  without  crossing  an  Ocean  of  3,000  miles  in  ex- 
tent, without  Bishops  the  Church  cannot  flourish  in  America 
and  unless  the  Church  be  well  supported  and  prevail,  this 
whole  Continent  will  be  overrun  with  Infidelity  and  Deism, 


58  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Methodism  and  New  Light  with  every  species  and  every  de- 
gree of  Scepticism  and  enthusiasm,  and  without  a  Bishop  upon 
the  spot  I  fear  it  will  be  impossible  to  keep  the  Church 
herself  pure  and  undefiled.  And  that  it  is  of  the  last  conse- 
quence to  the  State  to  support  the  Church  here,  the  present 
times  afford  an  alarming  proof.     .     .     ." 

What  particulars  may  have  been  adduced  by  the  writer  in 
the  part  unprinted  I  have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  certainly 
what  has  been  quoted  shows  the  convictions  which  led  not 
long  after  to  his  strenuous  advocacy  of  the  need  of  the  Episco- 
pate as  a  means  of  safeguarding  the  interests  of  religion,  and 
of  perpetuating  the  influence  of  the  Church  in  the  effort  to 
protect  the  State  against  the  attacks  wdiich  were  then  gradu- 
ally maturing,  and  which  finally  culminated  in  the  Revolution. 

The  troubles  of  the  Rector,  however,  were  not  merely  the 
fruit  of  mental  anxieties  in  regard  to  the  tendencies  of  thought 
and  action  which  seemed  to  menace  the  continued  peace  and 
welfare  of  both  Church  and  State,  but  were  sometimes  of  a 
more  personal  character,  involving  in  one  instance  an  in- 
trusion upon  his  parochial  jurisdiction,  and  leading  to  a  con- 
troversy of  considerable  acrimony  between  himself  and  one  of 
his  Flushing  parishioners  who  had  as  he  thought  abetted  that 
intrusion,  and  resented  the  Rector's  natural  and  proper  ob- 
jection to  it. 

It  will  be  better  to  defer  the  account  of  this  controversy 
to  the  next  chapter,  and  to  conclude  the  present  chapter  with 
a  reference  to  the  fact  that  during  the  time  covered  by  the 
letters  to  the  Society,  application  was  made  to  the  Civil  au- 
thority in  the  Colony  for  a  Charter  incorporating  the  parish 
Church.  The  application  is  addressed  to  the  Honourable  Cad- 
wallader  Colden,  President  of  his  Majesty's  Council  and  Com- 
mander in  chief  of  the  Province  of  New  York  and  the  Terri- 
tories depending  thereon  in  America;  is  dated  April  8th  1761, 
and  is  signed  by  Samuel  Seabury,  Jr.,  Minister,  and  by  twenty 


RESIDENCE   IN   JAMAICA.  59 

laymen  who  are  described  as  "  Sundry  of  the  Inhabitants  of 
the  Town  of  Jamaica  on  Nassau  Island  Communicants  and 
professors  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  Law  established ;" 
recites  the  erection  of  the  Church  by  voluntary  contributions, 
the  present  need  of  repairs  thereto,  and  the  danger  that  moneys 
contributed  for  that  and  other  Church  purposes  may  be  im- 
properly applied  for  want  of  persons  appointed  with  legal 
authority  to  superintend  its  affairs,  and  therefore  prays  for  the 
Charter.* 

4.  New  York  Documentary  History,  III,  324. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
RESIDENCE  IN  JAMAICA  — CONTINUED. 

AMONG  the  parishioners  of  Mr.  Seabnry  during  this 
period  was  Mr.  Jacob  Moore,  a  brother  of  Bishop 
Benjamin  Moore,  residing  in  Newtown;  who,  Hving 
to  be  upwards  of  ninety,  long  survived  his  Rector.  A  con- 
versation with  him  in  1825  my  father  records  in  his  notes, 
relating  how  with  great  emotion  and  admiration  Mr.  Moore 
had  described  the  Incumbent  of  Jamaica  as  a  man  much  be- 
loved and  revered  by  his  people  not  only  in  his  public  minis- 
trations but  in  his  private  intercourse;  and  as  a  man  of  ex- 
tensive and  various  information  and  ready  to  converse  on 
every  subject  that  was  introduced,  his  conversation  being  very 
instructive. 

Upon  this  the  observation  is  justly  made  that,  a  glimpse 
like  this  being  all  that  can  now  be  obtained  of  the  general 
tenor  of  the  life  which  we  are  following,  we  are  obliged  to 
derive  our  chief  information  from  surviving  records  of  events 
which  varied  from  the  general  tenor.  Of  this  character  is  the 
episode  referred  to  in  the  last  chapter,  resulting  in  the  con- 
troversy with  Mr.  Aspinwall,  a  Flushing  parishioner;  and, 
of  the  same  character,  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing,  are  sev- 
eral other  events  resulting  in  controversies  to  which  reference 
will  be  made  in  their  order. 

The  extant  evidences  of  the  difficulty  between  Mr.  Seabury 
and  Mr.  Aspinwall,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  are  two  letters  of 
the  former  to  the  Society,^  and  two  communications  of  his 

I.  Documentary  Annals  S.  New  York,  III,  323,  325. 

60 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA CONTINUED.  6l 

to  Holt's  New  York  Gazette  and  Weekly  Post  Boy ;  and  three 
letters  of  Mr.  Aspinwall  to  the  same  paper.  The  last  of  Mr. 
Aspinwall's  three  letters  seems  to  indicate  the  publication  of 
another  letter  of  Mr.  Seabury  to  which  it  is  a  reply,  but  this 
letter  has  not  come  under  my  observation. 

The  relations  between  these  combatants  appear  to  have  been 
friendly  enough  in  the  beginning,  and  Mr.  Seabury  makes 
grateful  mention  of  Mr.  Aspinwall's  liberality  and  efficiency 
in  the  Flushing  congregation ;  but  later,  regarding  Mr.  Aspin- 
wall as  the  abettor  of  an  intrusion  into  his  jurisdiction  by  Mr. 
Treadwell,  another  Missionary,  Mr.  Seabury  experiences  a 
decided  change  of  heart  towards  Mr.  Aspinwall,  reflecting 
strongly  upon  him  in  his  report  to  the  Society,  and  resenting 
very  deeply  certain  derogatory  remarks  of  Mr.  Aspinwall  in 
regard  to  him.  Under  the  influence  of  this  resentment  he 
published  a  demand  upon  Mr.  Aspinwall  for  the  specific  state- 
ment of  whatever  he  had  to  say  against  him,  with  any  proofs 
that  he  might  have  to  offer.  Mr.  Seabury's  resentment  against 
the  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Aspinwall  in  the  Treadwell  mat- 
ter, and  against  the  remarks  concerning  himself,  credibly  as 
he  thought  reported  to  him,  may  have  been  very  just  and  was 
very  natural :  but  he  would  seem  to  have  been  ill  advised  in 
the  mode  by  which  he  sought  redress ;  and  in  his  onslaught 
upon  Mr.  Aspinwall  he  certainly  caught  a  Tartar.  Unfor- 
tunately too,  the  Rector  lost  his  temper  and  used  language: 
Mr.  Aspinwall  keeping  his  temper  met  the  demand  for  speci- 
fications and  proofs  with  the  request  that  the  Rector  would 
inform  him  what  he  had  said  that  was  objectionable;  and  met 
the  language  by  reading  the  Rector  an  unctuous  lecture  on 
the  proprieties  of  Christian  and  Clerical  behaviour.  Upon 
the  evidence  of  the  papers  the  Rector  seems  to  have  had 
the  worst  of  the  controversy :  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he 
was  wrong  in  his  main  contention  that  he  had  been  injured 
by  the  influence  and  words  of  Mr.  Aspinwall.     Mr.  Aspinwall, 


62  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

however,  assuming  the  innocent  attitude  of  asking  what  he 
had  done  or  said,  was  of  course  under  no  necessity  of  deny- 
ing that  he  had  done  or  said  anything,  and  is  apparently  quite 
careful  not  to  do  so.  All  of  this  may  possibly  have  been  as 
Mr.  Aspinwall  intended  it  to  appear;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
his  attitude  is  exactly  that  which  a  clever  man  in  control  of 
his  temper  wouhl  take  when  charged  with  what  it  was  not 
convenient  to  deny. 

Air.  Scabury's  first  allusion  to  Mr.  Aspinwall  appears  in 
his  letter  to  the  Society  of  IMarch  26th,  1761,  in  which  he  re- 
ports the  progress  nearly  to  completion  of  the  Church  at 
Flushing.  *'  The  principal  expense  of  this  work,"  he  says, 
"  is  defrayed  by  Mr.  John  Aspinwall  and  Mr.  Thos.  Grennall 
two  gentlemen  who  have  lately  retired  thither  from  New 
York.  Mr.  Aspinwall  has  besides  made  them  a  present  of 
a  very  fine  bell  of  about  five  hundred  weight  and  I  hope  the 
influence  and  example  of  these  gentlemen  in  their  regular 
and  constant  attendance  on  divine  service  will  have  some  good 
effect  on  the  people  of  that  town.  Thro'  Mr.  Aspinwall's 
means  also  that  Church  hath  been  constantly  supplied  the 
last  half  year  with  a  Lay  Reader  one  Mr.  Treadwell  a  young 
gentleman  educated  at  Yale  College  in  Connecticut  of  an 
amiable  character  and  disposition  and  who  intends  to  offer 
himself  to  the  Society  and  with  their  permission  to  go  to 
England  next  autumn." 

It  ought  perhaps  to  be  noted  in  this  connection  that  in 
May,  1761,  a  petition  for  a  Charter  was  filed  in  behalf  of  the 
Flushing  congregation,  and  that  a  similar  petition  was  filed 
on  behalf  of  Newtown  in  September  of  the  same  year,  which 
petitions  were  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  foregoing  letter. 
Also  subsequently,  and  in  the  following  year,  it  appears  that 
Flushing  and  Newtown  joined  petitions  to  the  Society  for 
Treadwell  as  a  Missionary  ;2  but  that  he  had  been  appointed 

2.  Onderdonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  63. 


RESIDENCE   IN   JAMAICA  —  CONTINUED.  63 

as  Missionary  at  Trenton,  New  Jersey.  It  is  as  well  to  ob- 
serve further  that  the  Rector,  as  intimated  in  his  letter  of 
October  lo,  1759,  was  in  the  habit  of  officiating  once  in  three 
weeks  at  each  of  the  three  places  under  him,  which  arrange- 
ment was  not  wholly  satisfactory;  and  that  the  discontents 
as  to  this  led  sometime  later,  September  3,  1764,  to  a  confer- 
ence of  parties  interested  at  Comes'  Inn  at  which  an  engage- 
ment was  made  with  the  Rector  as  to  the  distribution  of  his 
services,^  and  that  this  meeting  had  taken  place  about  a  fort- 
night prior  to  the  date  of  Mr.  Seabury's  first  letter  to  Mr. 
Aspinwall.  In  possession  of  these  facts  the  reader  perhaps 
may  have  a  better  understanding  of  the  situation  of  affairs  in 
which  the  controversy  took  place. 

Two  years  after  the  letter  above  cited,  that  is  on  March 
26,  1763,  Mr.  Seabury,  reporting  again  to  the  Society,  calls 
its  attention  to  trouble  existing  in  his  Mission  of  which  he 
gives  the  following  account: 

"  About  eight  weeks  ago  Mr.  Treadwell  the  Society's  Missy 
at  Trenton  New  Jersey,  came  into  this  Parish  and  passed  thro' 
Jamaica,  (within  three  quarters  of  a  mile  of  my  house)  to 
Flushing  on  a  Saturday,  without  letting  me  know  that  he 
was  in  the  Parish,  nor  did  I  know  till  two  days  after  that 
he  was  even  in  the  Colony.  The  next  day  the  Church  at 
Flushing  was  (as  'tis  said)  violently  opened  and  occupied  by 
Mr.  Treadwell,  the  key  being  in  my  possession. 

Mr.  Treadwell  I  am  also  told  continued  there  some  time, 
preached  the  next  Sunday  after,  went  to  New  York,  preached 
on  a  week  day,  came  to  Jamaica  and  baptized  a  child  within 
a  little  more  than  a  mile  from  my  house,  the  child  being  well 
and  several  weeks  old,  and  I  had  not  been  out  of  the  Town 
for  more  than  a  day  for  six  months;  all  this  was  transacted 
without  giving  me  the  least  notice;  either  by  visiting  me, 
or  by  message,  or  by  letter;  nor  have  I  yet  either  seen  him 

3.  Onderonk's  Antiquities  Parish  of  Jamaica,  p.  64. 


64  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

or  heard  from  him.  I  am  utterly  unable  to  guess  at  the  mo- 
tive of  Mr.  Treaclwell's  conduct,  unless  he  acted  under  the 
influence  and  direction  of  Mr.  John  Aspinwall  of  Flushing, 
.  .  .  who  has  really  done  very  considerably  towards  finish- 
ing the  Church  and  gave  it  a  good  bell,  but  who  is  disgusted 
with  me  for  declining  to  give  Newtown  and  Flushing  to  Mr. 
Treadwell,  tho'  I  readily  consented  and  am  willing  to  re- 
ceive Mr.  T.  or  any  other  person  that  shall  be  agreeable 
to  the  Society  into  the  Parish  in  an  amiable  manner;  but  the 
expenses  of  a  growing  family  will  not  permit  me  to  relinquish 
any  part  of  the  Salary.  Nor  do  I  conceive  that  I  have  any 
right  to  give  up  any  part  of  the  Parish  to  the  entire  manage- 
ment of  another  person,  unless  it  should  be  divided  by  the 
same  public  authority  which  first  established  it.  Had  Mr. 
Treadwell  made  me  acquainted  with  his  being  in  the  Parish, 
I  should  readily  and  gladly  have  invited  him  to  preach  at  all 
the  three  Churches,  and  am  very  sorry  he  did  not  give  me 
the  opportunity,  as  it  would  have  prevented  all  disputes  and 
a  great  deal  of  talk  and  noise  and  ill  blood.  I  am  told  that 
I  can  have  my  remedy  at  common  law  and  have  been  much 
urged  by  my  warmer  friends  to  make  use  of  it,  but  I  would 
on  no  account  have  an  affair  of  this  kind  litigated  but  choose 
to  submit  it  entirely  to  the  Venerable  Society,  knowing  that 
while  I  discharge  my  duty  to  them,  they  will  protect  me  in 
the  quiet  and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  my  Mission,  which  I 
am  sorry  to  acquaint  them  is  a  good  deal  disturbed  and  un- 
settled by  this  behaviour  of  Mr.  Treadwell's." 

Ready  as  Mr.  Seabury  was,  however,  to  defer  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Society  in  regard  to  his  rights  in  his  Mission,  he 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  willing  to  submit  silently  to 
individual  endeavours  to  undermine  his  personal  character,  and 
influence  in  his  work;  and  upon  information  received  that 
such  endeavours  were  being  made  by  Mr.  Aspinwall  he  in- 
serted a  card  in  the  Gazette  and  Post  Boy  of  September  20, 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA CONTINUED.  65 

1764,  stating  that  whereas  it  had  been  represented  to  him  that 
Mr.  Aspinwall  had  at  various  times  traduced  and  aspersed 
his  character,  especially  in  New  York,  to  his  very  great  detri- 
ment and  disadvantage,  therefore  he  asks  the  favour  of  that 
gentleman  that  if  he  hath  anything  to  object  against  him,  he 
would  be  honourable  enough  to  do  it  in  one  of  the  public 
papers,  so  that  opportunity  of  vindication  might  be  afforded; 
and  that  he  would  name  all  at  one  time ;  and,  if  not  too  much 
trouble,  would  present  also  the  proof  of  his  allegations. 

It  probably  did  not  occur  to  the  writer  that  Mr.  Aspinwall 
could  not  reply  in  the  manner  desired  without  committing  him- 
self in  print  to  what  might  be  libellous ;  nor  without  abandon- 
ing his  comparatively  safe  position  of  being  merely  reported 
to  have  made  verbal  statements;  which  it  would  be  difficult 
to  have  proved  against  him,  and  which,  again,  the  writer  could 
not  allege  without  giving  the  name  of  his  informants,  which 
would  have  embroiled  others.  Mr.  Aspinwall,  however,  had 
apparently  no  difficulty  in  seeing  this.  At  any  rate  he  saw 
clearly  that  Mr.  Seabury's  demand  could  not  touch  him,  un- 
less he  should  be  so  indiscreet  as  to  comply  with  it.  Promptly 
therefore,  in  the  next  issue  of  the  paper,  September  27th, 
he  parries,  as  follows: 

"  Mr.  Holt,  By  an  advertisement  in  your  last  weeks  Paper 
I  find  myself  charged  by  Mr.  Seabury,  with  having  traduced 
his  character,  much  to  his  disadvantage,  and  he  desires  me 
to  insert  my  objections  to  him  in  one  of  the  publick  Papers, 
with  my  proofs  to  support  them ;  in  answer  to  which  I  shall  say 
no  more  at  present,  than  that  if  anything  I  have  declared  con- 
cerning him,  has  proved  so  detrimental  to  him  as  he  pretends, 
he  doubtless  must  have  been  informed  what  those  declara- 
tions were,  and  had  he  been  desirous  to  wipe  off  the  aspersion 
he  might  have  done  it  without  calling  on  me  to  repeat  the 
charges;  or  he  might  have  had  his  remedy  at  law,  which  lies 


66  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

open  to  him.  Mr.  Scabury  may  be  assured  that  I  shall  be 
ready  to  answer  him  in  sui)port  of  my  allegations,  whenever 
he  shall  think  proper  to  charge  me  with  them  in  a  course 
of  law. 

John  Aspinwall. 
Flushing,  September  19,  1764," 

Not  a  word  here  of  denial  of  any  injurious  statements  — 
only  the  fencing  plea  that  //  he  had  made  them  the  injured 
party  must  be  aware  of  them  and  was  at  liberty  to  prove 
them.  This  attitude  naturally  exasperated  the  Rector  who 
replied  with  considerable  acrimony  in  the  issue  of  October 
nth,  1764,  quoting  Mr.  Aspinwall's  answer,  and  appending 
the  following  address: 

"  To  the  Public. 

As  I  have  been  told  there  are  several  Gentlemen  in  the 
City  (whose  friendship  I  very  much  value,  and  whose  good 
opinion  I  shall  ever  be  solicitous  to  retain),  who  have  been 
kind  enough  to  express  their  regard  for  me  on  account  of 
the  unhappy  dispute  I  have  been  obliged  to  enter  into  with  Mr. 
Aspinwall ;  and  who  may  perhaps  think  I  have  been  too  hasty 
in  calling  upon  him  in  the  public  manner  I  have  done, —  I 
beg  them  to  consider,  that  the  character  of  an  honest  man, 
will  suffer  less  from  being  critically  examined  by  ten  thousand 
persons,  than  from  having  slanderous  reports  of  him,  received 
without  examination,  by  ever  so  few.  While  Mr.  Aspinwall 
confined  his  misrepresentations  to  my  own  Parish,  I  had  fre- 
quent opportunities  of  obviating  them,  and  setting  matters  in 
their  true  light;  but  when  it  was  told  me  he  industriously  as- 
persed me  at  New  York,  where  I  could  seldom  if  ever,  have 
the  opportunity  of  saying  a  word  in  my  own  defence ;  I  knew 
no  way  to  check  the  liberty  he  gave  himself,  but  by  calling 
publicly  upon  him  to  avow  openly,  what  he  privately  reported. 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA  —  CONTINUED.  67 

—  and  this  I  hope  will  be  thought  some  apology,  if  not  a 
sufficient  one  for  my  conduct. 

The  regard  I  have  to  my  own  character,  as  a  Clergyman, 
prevents  my  making  those  severe  remarks  upon  Mr.  Aspin- 
wall's  advertisement,  to  which  he  hath  fairly  exposed  himself. 

—  Thus  much  however  I  must  observe,  that  many  of  the  most 
atrocious  crimes  are  often  not  recognizable  in  a  court  of  law ; 
so  that  in  a  dispute  of  this  nature,  for  Mr.  Aspinwall  to  say 
the  law  is  open,  is  I  think  to  give  up  all  pretensions  to  the 
character  of  a  gentleman,  which  cannot  be  supported  without 
integrity  and  honour ;  —  it  is  descending  for  security  to  the 
level  of  the  midnight  rogue,  who  breaks  open  and  robs  your 
house,  or  the  more  detestable  villain  who  corrupts  your  wife 
or  debauches  your  daughter;  and  because  circumstances  in 
neither  case  will  always  admit  of  a  legal  prosecution,  the 
wretch  hugs  himself  in  his  security  from  a  course  of  law. 

—  Thus  Mr.  Aspinwall,  having  by  more  open  slander,  where 
he  dared;  and  by  sly  insinuations  and  partial  representations, 
endeavoured  to  ruin  the  reputation  of  a  defenseless  Clergy- 
man, whose  only  crime  was  that  of  asserting,  perhaps  too 
warmly  his  own  rights  and  the  privileges  of  his  Parish ;  — 
having  as  much  as  in  him  lay  destroyed  his  usefulness  and 
influence,  and  even  laid  schemes  to  drive  him  out  of  his  living, 

—  when  called  upon  publicly,  to  avow  openly,  and  justify  his 
assertions,  answers,  the  law  is  open.  The  law  is  open  Sir! 
'Tis  true,  but  at  present  it  suits  ill  with  my  purse,  worse  with 
my  inclination:  Rest  therefore  in  full  security  from  a  legal 
prosecution,  and  rest  as  much  at  peace  as  your  own  conscience 
will  let  you.  But  Sir!  Remember,  your  evasive  advertise- 
ment, can  give  no  satisfaction,  either  to  myself  or  the  Pub- 
lic. If  you  will  support  the  character  of  a  gentleman,  I  hope 
you  will  think  yourself  obliged  either  to  deny  the  charge,  and 
say  you  have  not  represented  me  to  my  disadvantage ;  or  that 
you  be  particular  in  your  charge  against  me,   and   support 


68  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

your  allegations  with  proper  proof;  and  not  evade  the  mat- 
ter either  by  general  or  unsupported  accusations,  nor  by  put- 
ting it  off  to  some  future  time. 

Samuel  Seabury. 
Jamaica,  September  25th,  1764." 

Notwithstanding  the  strong  language  in  which  the  Rector 
here  indulges  himself,  it  is  manifest  that  he  defends  with 
some  dignity  the  position  which  he  has  taken,  and  that  he 
keeps  close  to  the  point  that  he  had  been  injured  by  words 
of  Mr.  Aspinwall,  which  was  not  denied  but  only  evaded  by 
his  adversary.  Mr.  Aspinwall,  on  the  other  hand,  keeps  close 
to  his  point  that  it  was  incumbent  on  the  Rector  to  allege 
specifically  what  he  had  said.  Obviously  therefore  the  contro- 
versy is  really  narrowed  to  the  debatable  question  as  to  what 
the  proper  mode  of  procedure  was  under  the  circumstances; 
and  on  this  plane  Mr.  Aspinwall  is  very  careful  to  keep  it 
in  the  two  letters  which  he  subsequently  contributed  to  the 
dispute.  In  the  issue  of  October  i8th  of  the  same  paper 
appears  the  first  of  these,  as  follows : 

"  To  the  Public. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  make  any  observations  on  Mr. 
Seabury's  apology  for  his  former  advertisement;  in  which 
he  called  on  me  to  publish  what  I  had  to  say  against  him: 
Neither  do  I  think  it  at  all  consistent  with  the  character  of  a 
Christian,  to  render  railing  for  railing,  or  in  other  words  to 
retaliate  the  indecent  scurrility  with  which  his  Appeal  to  the 
Public  so  plentifully  abounds. 

On  reading  his  advertisement  first  published,  I  concluded 
that  he  had  heard  of  my  reporting  something  to  the  disad- 
vantage of  his  character,  that  was  without  foundation ;  and  as 
I  knew  that  the  laws  of  the  land  are  ever  careful  in  guarding 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA CONTINUED.  69 

the  subject's  interest  and  reputation,  I  therefore  said,  the 
law  zvas  open,  supposing  that  a  more  prudent  way  for  him  to 
obtain  satisfaction,  if  he  was  injured  as  he  pretends,  than  to 
enter  into  a  controversy  in  the  pubHck  papers,  where  both 
parties  meet  with  blame;  especially  when  the  dispute  abounds 
with  abusive  language. 

But  he  says  the  laws  of  his  Country  will  not  give  him 
satisfaction,  and  endeavours  to  make  the  world  believe  that  I 
would  take  shelter  under  that  refuge —  No;  this  was  not 
my  view :  for  I  now  declare,  that  if  I  have  said  anything 
against  Mr.  Seabury  that  has  been  so  detrimental  to  him  as 
he  would  insinuate,  which  I  cannot  maintain,  I  shall  not 
only  be  ready  and  willing,  upon  the  principles  of  honour,  to 
make  him  every  acknowledgment  that  can  be  due  to  him,  but 
am  equally  ready  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  most  publick 
examination. 

After  this  candid  declaration,  I  expect  that  Mr.  Seabury 
will  descend  to  particulars  in  his  accusations,  with  proper 
proofs,  to  support  them;  as  I  hope  I  shall  be  excused  for 
not  taking  his  word  for  anything  he  is  pleased  to  charge 
against  me,  I  say,  I  expect  he  will  now  descend  to  the  par- 
ticulars, wherein  he  conceives  I  have  abused  and  injured  him; 
and  not  unreasonably  insist  on  my  surmising  what  those  par- 
ticulars are,  that  he  is  pleased  to  insinuate  to  the  publick;  he 
says  he  has  been  told,  and  has  heard  them ;  if  so,  why  need 
he  call  on  me?  The  world  must  see  that  it  lies  upon  him, 
at  least,  to  suggest  what  he  has  heard,  and  not  to  fill  up  a 
paper,  with  an  imaginary  something,  set  off  in  language 
little  becoming  the  dispassionate  temper  of  a  Minister  of 
Christ.  If  instead  of  this,  he  had  pointed  out  the  particular 
instances  of  slander  that  he  complains  of,  I  should  have  had 
an  opportunity  of  answering  him ;  which  if  I  could  not  have 
done,  he  undoubtedly  must  be  justified  and  I  stand  condemned 


70  MEMOIR   OF    r.ISIIOP    SEABURY. 

—  This,  however  I  am  not  at  all  apprehensive  of,  as  I  am  con- 
fident I  have  never  said  anything  against  him  unjustly,  or  that 
he  did  not  deserve. 

John  AsriNWALL. 
Flushing,  October  i6th,  1764," 

What  Mr.  Aspinwall  calls  his  *'  candid  declaration  "  is  ex- 
actly of  the  same  character  as  that  of  his  first  answer.  It  all 
depends  on  the  word  if:  ''if  I  have  said  anything  so  detri- 
mental to  him  as  he  would  insinuate,  I  shall  not  only  be  ready, 
etc."  That  is  to  say  —  far  be  it  from  me  to  deny  that  I 
have  said  anything  so  detrimental :  and  this  must  suffice  the 
man  who  conceives  himself  injured,  and  who  will  neither  go 
to  law  with  me,  nor  embroil  his  friends  who  have  reported 
me.  And  so  he  concludes,  hedging  as  before,  '*  I  am  con- 
fident I  never  have  said  anything  against  him  unjustly,  or 
that  he  did  not  deserve;"  quite  ignoring  the  right  of  an  in- 
jured party  to  have  the  issue  of  justice  or  desert  determined 
not  in  the  ex  parte  tribunal  of  the  injurer's  mind,  but  upon  a 
fair  discussion  involving  the  hearing  of  the  injured  one  also. 

Obviously  a  controversy  on  such  lines  as  these  might  be 
endless,  and  it  was  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  each  party 
should  claim  that  the  advantage  lay  with  him;  Mr.  Aspinwall 
on  the  ground  that  his  opponent  had  failed  to  establish  that 
anything  had  been  said  against  him ;  Mr.  Seabury  on  the 
ground  that  his  opponent  had  never  explicitly  denied  that  he 
had  disparaged  him,  and  when  challenged  to  bring  out  pub- 
licly what  he  had  against  him  that  there  might  be  opportunity 
of  vindication,  had  evaded  the  demand  by  demurring  to  the 
form  in  which  it  was  made. 

Mr.  Aspinwall  apparently  has  the  last  word  in  the  contro- 
versy, which  is  dated  November  4,  1764.  The  letter  is  very 
long,  and,  controversially  viewed,  very  able  and  effective  —  on 
the  whole  the  best  piece  of  writing  which  the  controversy  had 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA CONTINUED.  71 

produced.  But  apart  from  the  personalities,  which  are  some- 
what varied  and  extended,  the  letter  goes  over  at  greater 
length  the  same  ground  as  before,  and  holds  fast  to  the  same 
if  as  had  previously  been  so  discreetly  pressed.  The  copy 
which  is  before  me  is  printed  on  a  fragment  of  a  sheet  which 
contains  no  title  nor  date  of  issue,  but  which  I  presume  to 
have  been  a  part  of  the  Gazette  and  Post  Boy  of  the  issue  of 
November  8th,  1764.  It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  reproduce 
the  whole  letter,  as  for  the  most  part  it  is  merely  an  iteration 
and  elaboration  of  what  had  been  said  before,  and  an  en- 
deavour with  controversial  cleverness  to  fix  upon  the  writer's 
antagonist  that  evasiveness  which,  from  the  opponent's  point 
of  view,  he  was  himself  chargeable  with.  There  is,  however, 
one  passage  which  touches  upon  a  matter  which  he  had  not 
before  noticed;  and  this  seems  to  be  worth  recording  for  the 
light  which  it  throws  upon  his  desire  to  transplant  his  Rector, 
or  prune  his  branches;  which  desire,  after  all,  goes  far  to 
account  for  his  attitude  in  the  case,  and  is  very  likely  to  have 
produced  the  strictures  of  which  the  Rector  had  been  in- 
formed, but  which  the  weakness  of  his  memory  or  the  strength 
of  his  discretion  made  it  impracticable  for  Mr.  Aspinwall  to 
recall. 

Referring  to  the  Rector's  course  in  the  discussion  the  writer 
observes  that  "  he  vouchsafes  to  say,  that  I  have  traduced  his 
character  at  New  York,  endeavoured  to  destroy  his  usefulness 
and  influence  in  his  own  Parish,  and  laid  schemes  to  get  him 
out  of  his  living.  The  first  of  these  is  indeed  very  general, 
for  I  am  still  to  ask  in  what  I  have  traduced  his  character  there. 
As  to  the  second  it  must  be  confessed  he  has  by  some  part  of 
his  conduct,  in  a  great  measure,  destroyed  his  usefulness 
among  many  in  his  own  parish ;  I  should  have  been  glad  to 
have  rendered  him  more  useful  than  he  is  —  with  respect  to 
his  living,  it  is  true  that  I  lately  favoured  the  scheme,  of 
getting  him  into  a  better,  that  was  vacant,  and  that  for  my 


72  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

sake  as  well  as  his ;  for,  as  on  the  one  hand,  I  am  sure  he 
would  have  had  no  objection  to  a  better  salary,  so  on  the 
other  hand,  I  would  have  been  willing  to  have  received  in  his 
stead,  a  minister  with  whom  I  could  live  in  harmony  and 
friendship." 

Mr.  Aspinwall's  caution  in  attributing  impaired  usefulness 
to  the  Rector  is  admirable,  and,  after  all,  allows  him  to  say 
but  little.  "  Some  part  of  his  conduct,"  **  in  a  great  measure," 
'*  amongst  many/'  are  very  guarded  expressions  indeed.  The 
same  might  be  said  of  numerous  good  and  successful  Rectors 
before  and  since  without  being  exactly  libellous.  Equally  de- 
lightful is  the  solicitude  displayed  for  the  promotion  of  the 
Rector's  usefulness,  and  in  a  higher  sphere.  It  is  true  that  this 
was  not  wholly  unselfish :  but  then,  how  few  human  actions  are 
uninfluenced  by  mixed  motives !  The  passage,  '  however,  is 
particularly  notable  as  exhibiting  the  nearest  approach  to 
frankness  which  the  writer  permitted  to  himself  throughout 
the  controversy :  and,  as  such,  is  a  conspicuous  instance  of  fair 
dealing  in  the  midst  of  a  mass  of  special  pleading;  and  not 
less  is  it  valuable  as  containing  the  admission  of  an  adverse 
feeling  which,  to  say  the  least,  was  capable  of  producing  ad- 
verse remarks ;  as  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth 
speaketh.  Whether  it  did  have  this  effect  may  be  matter  of 
conjecture.  But  Mr.  Aspinwall  never  denied  that  it  did.  If 
no  disparaging  remarks  had  been  made  it  had  been  a  very 
simple  matter  to  say  so;  and,  unless  one  charged  with  such 
remarks  had  enjoyed  playing  with  controversial  letter  writing, 
he  would  be  apt  to  say  so,  if  he  could. 

In  taking  leave  of  this  episode  I  am  wondering  whether  I 
am  giving  the  reader  ground  to  think  that  I  have  made  too 
much  of  a  small  matter,  and  in  so  doing  have  made  conspicu- 
ous a  phase  of  Mr.  Seabury's  life  which  might  better  have 
been  left  in  the  obscurity  of  musty  manuscripts  and  forgotten 


RESIDENCE    IN    JAMAICA CONTINUED.  73 

publications ;  or  that  I  have  dealt  more  hardly  with  Mr.  Aspin- 
wall  than  I  should. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  doubts,  however,  I  assure  myself 
that  having  in  view  not  the  presentation  of  a  flattering  but 
rather  of  a  truthful  picture  of  my  subject,  it  is  right  that  I 
should  present  him  so  far  as  possible  as  he  was :  and  not  seek 
to  conceal  what  I  may  imagine  some  reader  may  condemn. 
And  as  to  the  unimportance  of  the  matter  I  think  that  the 
questions  of  a  Clergyman's  living,  and  of  his  fitness  to  retain 
it,  are  much  the  reverse  of  unimportant,  and  justify  a  very 
considerable  warmth  of  feeling  and  strength  of  language  on 
the  part  of  the  Clergyman  against  whom  they  are  broached. 

With  regard  to  Mr.  Aspinwall,  while  I  am  not  his  biogra- 
pher, I  should  on  the  other  hand  be  sorry  indeed  to  seem  un- 
just to  one  who  from  all  that  I  have  heard  was  undoubtedly 
worthy  of  great  respect  both  as  a  Churchman  and  as  a  Citizen ; 
and  whose  name  has  ever  since  his  time  been  honourably 
conspicuous  both  in  the  commercial  and  social  history  of  New 
York.  But  I  do  not  think  it  unjust  to  him,  nor  inconsistent 
with  the  respect  due  to  an  otherwise  exemplary  life,  to  say 
that  in  the  present  instance  he  amused  and  protected  himself 
by  substituting  a  diplomatic  diversion  for  the  straightforward 
frankness  which  would  have  been,  I  am  disposed  to  believe, 
more  in  keeping  with  his  character  and  position. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  RECTORATE  OF  ST.  PETER'S,  WEST  CHESTER. 

1766. 

THE  tenure  of  the  Jamaica  Parish  appears  to  have  been 
terminated  about  two  years  after  the  Treadwcll  in- 
trusion. In  1764  occurred  the  death  of  Mr.  Sea- 
bury's  father,  the  Rector  of  St.  George's,  Hempstead,  to  be 
near  whom  had  been  one  of  his  inducements  to  settle  in  Ja- 
maica ;  and  this  loss  of  a  sustaining  association,  together  with 
the  great  discouragements  he  was  conscious  of  in  his  work  at 
that  place,  led  him  to  accept  the  offer  of  the  Rectorate  of  St. 
Peter's,  West  Chester.  His  settlement  as  Rector  appears  to 
have  been  accomplished  with  perhaps  somewhat  more  formality 
than  was  always  observed  in  such  cases.  Whether  this  ap- 
pearance is  due  to  the  precision  of  Sir  Henry  Moore,  the  then 
Governor  of  the  Province,  or  to  the  fact  that  in  some  other 
cases  there  has  not  been  the  same  preservation  of  records,  I 
cannot  say;  but  it  is  certain  that  in  the  present  instance  the 
papers  extant  seem  to  be  more  specific  in  their  provisions  than 
in  others  which  we  have  met.  There  are  four  documents  ex- 
tant in  relation  to  the  matter,  three  bearing  date  December  3, 
1766;  and  the  fourth  dated  March  i,  1767.  In  the  first  three 
Sir  Henry  Moore  under  his  hand  and  the  prerogative  seal  of 
the  Province  of  New  York,  respectively —  ist,  institutes  Sam- 
uel Seabury  clerk,  Rector  of  the  Parish  Church  at  West 
Chester  commonly  called  St.  Peter's  Church,  including  the  Dis- 
tricts of  West  Chester,  East  Chester,  Yonkers  and  the  Manor 

74 


THE   RECTORATE   OF   ST.    PETER'S,    WEST   CHESTER,  75 

of  Pelham;  2(1,  admits  him  to  be  Rector  of  said  Parish  with 
the  same  territorial  inclusion;  3d,  declares  that  he  has  Col- 
lated, Instituted  and  Established  him  to  be  Rector  of  said 
Parish  Church  with  the  same  territorial  inclusion,  and  charges 
all  Rectors  and  Parish  Ministers  within  the  Province,  and 
the  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  St.  Peter's  Church 
that  in  due  manner  him  the  said  Samuel  Seabury  into  the  real 
actual  and  corporal  possession  of  the  said  Rectory  and  Parish 
Church  they  induct  or  cause  to  be  inducted,  with  all  its  rights 
and  appurtenances,  and  him  so  inducted  do  defend.  The 
fourth  document  is  a  certificate  signed  by  the  Rev*^.  Dr.  Myles 
Cooper,  then  President  of  Kings  College,  that  by  virtue  of 
the  above  Mandate  he  had  on  the  date  above  mentioned 
inducted  Samuel  Seabury  into  the  real  actual  and  corporal 
possession  of  St.  Peter's  Church  with  all  its  rights,  privileges 
and  appurtenances  whatever.^ 

In  addition  to  his  settlement  as  Rector  of  West  Chester,  Mr. 
Seabury  was  also  transferred  by  the  Society  as  Missionary  to 
that  place.^ 

From  one  of  his  reports  to  the  Society,  written  in  the 
course  of  his  first  year  in  the  new  station,  which  is  printed  by 
Dr.  Beardsley,^  it  appears  that  St.  Peter's  was  then  a  small  old 
wooden  building,  with  an  average  attendance  of  about  two 
hundred  —  his  communicants  numbering  twenty-four.  At 
East  Chester,  about  four  miles  distant  he  reports  the  congre- 
gation as  generally  larger  than  at  West  Chester ;  and  that  their 
present  building  being  insufficient  they  had  completed  the  roof 

1.  The  two  last  cited  of  these  documents  I  had  the  honour  to  give 
to  St.  Peter's  Church  on  the  occasion  of  the  200th  anniversary  of  the 
Parish,  and  reference  is  now  made  to  them  through  copies  furnished 
to  me  by  the  courtesy  of  the  Rev.  F.  M,  Gendenin,  D.D.,  the  pres- 
ent Rector;  the  other  two  documents  are  still  in  my  possession. 

2.  Beardsley's  Life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  21. 

3.  Ibid.,  pp.  22-24. 


70  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

of  a  large  well  built  stone  Church,  further  work  upon  which 
was  suspended  for  want  of  funds ;  that  he  preached  every  other 
Sunday  morning  at  West  Chester,  and  after  prayers  in  the 
afternoon  catechized  the  children  and  explained  the  Catechism 
to  them.  He  reports  having  baptized  at  West  Chester  six 
white  children  and  one  mulatto  adult;  at  East  Chester  eight 
white,  and  at  New  Rochclle  seven  white  and  two  negro  chil- 
dren ;  also  that  he  had  made  two  visits  to  Jamaica  since  leaving 
there,  baptizing  one  adult,  and  two  white  and  three  black 
children. 

Passing  to  temporal  affairs  he  notes,  among  other  things, 
that  the  people  at  Newtown  had  sent  him  £20  currency,  which 
probably  sustains  the  suggestion  in  a  previous  chapter  in 
regard  to  the  apportionment  of  salary  in  the  Jamaica  Parish. 
The  salary  in  the  West  Chester  Parish  he  says  is  by  act  of 
Assembly  ''  £50  currency  —  the  exchange  from  New  York  to 
London  being  generally  from  £70  to  £80  for  £100  sterling." 
The  parsonage  house  he  reports  as  needing  an  outlay  of  £100 
currency  to  make  it  comfortable,  and  adds  that  the  glebe  has 
cost  him  near  £20  to  repair  the  fences. 

This  glimpse  of  the  pastoral  life  at  West  Chester  may  per- 
haps suffice  for  the  general  understanding  of  the  course  of 
that  life  during  the  period  of  his  active  ministry  in  that  Parish. 
There  is  little  diversity  in  that  kind  of  life,  which  involves  the 
regular  recurrence  of  services  and  sermons,  visitations  upon 
parishioners,  and  application  of  the  teachings  of  the  lessons 
and  means  of  Grace  of  the  Gospel  to  the  individual  needs,  as 
well  of  the  sick  as  of  the  whole,  as  opportunity  may  offer. 
And  so  far  as  I  am  aware  there  is  nothing  in  the  strictly  pas- 
toral life  of  the  Rector  of  St.  Peter's  that  was  particularly 
worthy  of  being  commemorated.  The  same  faithfulness  and 
diligence  which  he  had  previously  manifested  in  other  cures, 
and  which  throughout  his  life  he  continued  to  manifest  in  the 
exercise  of  the  Pastoral  function,  was  manifested  here,  and 


TPIE   RECTORATE   OF    ST.    PETER  S,    WEST    CHESTER.  'J'J 

while  the  results  of  his  work  were  of  momentous  importance 
to  those  who  experienced  the  benefits  of  it,  yet  there  has  not 
come  down,  to  me  at  least,  the  knowledge  of  any  particular 
event  which  would  be  of  general  interest  in  that  aspect  of  his 
career. 

On  the  other  hand  in  respect  to  points  at  which  the  life  of 
the  Rector  touched  the  life  of  the  Church  beyond  the  Parish, 
or  of  the  people  of  the  Colonies,  the  time  spent  at  West 
Chester  was  very  full  of  incident,  and  produced  events  which 
were  of  pervading  interest  then,  and  are  very  worthy  of  re- 
membrance now:  and  it  will  be  desirable  to  consider  some  of 
the  steps  by  which  the  Rector  became  engrossed  in  interests 
which  though  not  inconsistent  in  principle  with  the  ordinary 
duties  of  the  parish  priest  yet  were  practically  incompatible 
with  the  regular  discharge  of  them;  and  which  reached  far 
beyond  them,  appealing  as  they  did  to  his  convictions  of  duty 
both  to  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  to  the  Country  of  which 
he  was  a  citizen.  This  consideration  will  lead  us  through  the 
period  of  his  active  ministry  at  St.  Peter's,  and  beyond  that 
into  the  time  when  the  political  controversies  of  the  day  cul- 
minated in  the  war  of  the  Revolution ;  and  will  bring  into  view 
his  connection  with  the  efforts  which  were  being  made  to 
procure  the  Episcopate,  and  also  certain  personal  controversies 
in  which  that  connection  involved  him.  It  will  lead  us  also 
to  take  a  view  of  his  attitude  toward  the  Civil  Government, 
and  against  those  principles  which  he  deemed  subversive  of  it, 
and  calculated  to  work  to  the  injury  of  the  Church  as  well  as 
of  the  State:  and  though  the  process  will  bring  us  into  a 
somewhat  diversified  range  of  topics,  it  will  be  interesting  to 
note  how  naturally  one  position  followed  another  in  his  course 
of  life,  and  how  his  simple  devotion  to  the  principles  for  which 
he  stood  seems  to  have  necessitated  his  choice  of  actions  in  the 
complications  in  which  he  was  involved. 

In  the  last  year  of  Mr.  Seabury's  stay  at  Jamaica  an  associa- 


78  MEMOIR    OF    RISIIOP    SEABURY. 

tion  was  made  by  the  Clergy  of  the  Province  resulting  in 
their  organization  as  a  Convention.  This  association  was  de- 
signed in  general  for  the  benefit  of  mutual  counsel,  and  for 
the  promotion  of  the  welfare  of  the  Church  in  the  Province, 
and  particularly  for  the  furthering  of  the  movement  for  a 
Colonial  Episcopate.  It  was,  of  course,  a  voluntary  union, 
and  was  therefore  styled  a  Convention,  as  distinguished  from 
a  Convocation  which  involves  the  idea  of  a  superior  authority 
by  which  the  body  is  called  together.  But  the  body  was  duly 
organized  by  the  consent  of  its  members,  and  it  provided  by 
the  same  consent  laws  for  its  own  government,  and  a  Standing 
Committee  for  the  administration  of  affairs  between  its  ses- 
sions. It  was  in  its  inception,  properly  speaking,  a  Convention 
of  the  Church  in  the  Province  of  New  York  as  represented  by 
its  clergy ;  and  was  thus  the  forerunner  of  that  Convention  of 
the  Church  in  the  State  of  New  York  which  was  organized, 
with  the  addition  of  lay  representatives,  some  twenty  years 
later.  Notwithstanding  its  particular  connection  with  New 
York,  however,  the  body  received  into  it  individuals  among 
the  Clergy  both  of  Connecticut  and  New  Jersey;  men,  for 
example,  like  Dr.  Johnson  of  Connecticut  and  Dr.  Chandler  of 
New  Jersey,  of  whose  counsel  and  co-operation  its  members 
were  glad  to  avail  themselves.  There  seems  also  to  have  been 
a  similar  Convention  in  New  Jersey,  whether  originating  be- 
fore or  after  that  of  New  York  I  am  not  informed,  but  which 
was  afterwards  associated  with  that  of  New  York,  in  a  volun- 
tary union,  which  was  styled  "  The  United  Convention  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  or  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  accord- 
ing to  the  Province  in  which  they  meet,"  an  association  which 
seems  again  to  have  foreshadowed  the  later  voluntary  associa- 
tion of  the  Churches  in  these  and  other  States  of  the  Civil 
Union,  and  which  established  the  General  Convention. 

Of  the  body  thus  organized  in  1766  Mr.  Seabury  was  the 
Secretary,  and  the  Minutes  of  the  Convention  of  New  York, 


THE   RECTORATE   OF   ST.    PETER'S,    WEST   CHESTER.  79 

and  of  the  United  Convention  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey, 
were  written  and  signed  by  him  as  such,  in  a  book  which  is 
now  before  me,  for  the  period  of  a  year,  from  May  21,  1766,  to 
May  21,  1767.  From  the  fact  that  the  Minute  book  remained 
in  his  possession,  and  that  it  contains  no  entry  of  Minutes  after 
the  latter  date,  I  infer  that  the  meetings  of  the  body  ceased 
from  that  time,  though  I  have  no  further  information  as  to 
this  point.  The  fact  that  this  Convention,  not  only  in  the 
choice  of  its  Secretary  but  also  in  certain  other  of  its  acts,  is 
connected  with  the  subject  of  this  memoir;  and  the  intrinsic 
interest  of  the  record  of  its  proceedings,  have  led  me  to  give 
some  account  of  its  history.  I  extract  from  these  Minutes 
such  passages  as  bear  upon  the  present  story. 

In  a  letter  of  the  Convention  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Society, 
adopted  May  2.2,  1766,  in  New  York,  after  referring  to  the 
loss  of  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Giles,  and  the  loss  of  one-fifth  of 
the  Missionaries  sent  over  by  the  Society,  mention  of  which 
has  already  been  made,  the  letter  continues  — 

"  This  we  consider  as  an  incontestable  argument  for  the 
necessity  of  American  Bishops ;  and  we  do  in  the  most  earnest 
manner  beg  and  intreat  the  venerable  Society,  to  whose  piety 
and  care  under  God,  the  Church  of  England  owes  her  very 
being  in  most  parts  of  America,  that  they  would  use  their 
utmost  influence  to  effect  a  point  so  essential  to  the  interest  of 
the  Church  in  this  wide  extended  Country. 

As  we  esteem  it  our  duty  to  give  the  Society  every  informa- 
tion relative  to  the  state  of  religion  in  this  Country,  we  are 
now  to  inform  them,  that  there  are  now  a  great  many  Inde- 
pendent and  Presbyterian  teachers  assembled  at  this  place,  to 
the  number  of  above  sixty,  and  many  more  expected,  who  call 
themselves  a  Synod;  and  we  are  credibly  informed  that  the 
grand  point  they  have  in  view  is  to  apply  to  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  to  use  their  utmost  influence 
with  his  Majesty  and  the  British  Parliament,  that  they  may  be 


80  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

incorporated  and  established,  and  endowed  with  the  most  ample 
privileges  and  immunities.  As  we  foresee  the  greatest  mis- 
chief from  this  scheme,  should  it  succeed,  we  humbly  assure 
ourselves  the  Society  will  use  such  methods  as  they  think 
proper,  to  prevent  these  aspiring  men  from  accomplishing  their 
pernicious  designs." 

At  the  meeting  of  January  21,  1767,  "  Dr.  Chandler  having 
read  to  the  Board  a  letter  of  his  to  the  Ld.  Bishop  of  Oxford, 
containing  some  animated  and  just  strictures  upon  the  Bishop 
of  Glocester's  unaccountable  sermon  before  the  Society  anno 
1766,  which  we  apprehend  will  be  attended  with  the  most  fatal 
consequences;  it  was  resolved  .  .  .  that  he  be  requested 
to  forward  it  as  soon  as  possible  in  its  present  shape ;  .  .  . 
Mr.  Cooper  having  produced  a  letter  from  Dr.  Durell,  Vice 
Chancellor  of  Oxford,  and  Principal  of  Hartford  College,  in 
answer  to  the  address  upon  the  subject  of  American  Bishops, 
which  was  sent  to  the  University  of  Oxford,  from  the  Clergy 
of  New  Jersey  and  New  York;  it  was  resolved  that  Mr. 
Cooper  be  desired  to  return  the  thanks  of  the  Convention  to 
the  Doctor,  for  his  kind  letter;  and  to  beg  the  continuance  of 
his  countenance  and  protection." 

At  the  meeting  of  May  20,  1767,  "  On  a  motion  made  it 
was  agreed  unanimously,  That  no  copy  of  any  minute  or 
minutes  of  the  Convention,  be  given  to  any  person  except  a 
member,  without  a  particular  order  of  the  Convention." 

At  the  adjourned  meeting  May  21st,  the  Convention  adopted 
and  signed  a  letter  to  Horatio  Sharp,  Esqr.,  Governor  of  the 
Province  of  Maryland  introducing  to  him  *'  the  Rev*^.  Doctor 
Myles  Cooper,  President  of  the  King's  College  in  this  city, 
and  a  member  of  the  venerable  Society  for  the  propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts,  and  the  Rev^.  Mr.  Robert  Mac- 
Kean,  Missionary  at  Amboy,  New  Jersey,  whom  we  have  de- 
sired to  wait  upon  and  confer  with  your  Excellency,  on  an 
affair  we  have  much  at  heart,  namely  an  American  Episcopate ; 


THE    RECTORATE   OF    ST.    PETER'S,    WEST    CHESTER.  8l 

with  this  the  interest  of  the  Church  is  so  closely  connected, 
that  not  only  her  welfare,  but  probably  her  existence  in  a 
short  time  —  we  apprehend  —  will  depend  upon  our  obtain- 
ing it. 

The  Rev^.  Gentlemen  who  are  to  present  this,  and  in  whom 
we  repose  entire  confidence,  will  lay  before  your  Excellency 
the  plan  of  such  an  Episcopate  as  is  proposed,  which  in  our 
opinion,  will  remove  every  reasonable  objection  that  can  be 
made  against  it,  either  by  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, or  Dissenters  of  any  denomination ;  as  none  of  the  rights, 
privileges,  or  immunities  of  either  will  be  in  the  least  affected, 
or  any  ways  affected  by  it."  A  letter  to  the  same  effect  was 
given  by  the  Convention  to  Dr.  Cooper  and  Mr.  McKean  for 
the  Clergy  of  the  Province  of  Maryland. 

It  appears  from  these  references  that  the  appeal  so  often 
made  by  individuals  for  the  gift  of  a  Colonial  Episcopate  was 
now  formally  made  by  the  united  action  of  the  Clergy  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  to  the  Society,  and  to  the  University 
of  Oxford,  in  the  hope  doubtless  that  from  these  sources 
effectual  influence  might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Civil 
Authority,  the  consent  and  authorization  of  which  were  essen- 
tial to  the  accomplishment  of  the  object;  and  also  that  an 
effort  was  made  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  Governor 
and  Clergy  of  Maryland  in  this  enterprise.  It  was  the  rumour 
of  the  day  that  appeals  had  also  been  presented  in  other  direc- 
tions, but  if  such  were  the  case  the  minutes  afford  no  evidence 
of  it.  It  will  be  observed,  moreover,  that  exception  was  taken 
to  the  Bishop  of  Glocester's  sermon  of  1766;  that  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Society  is  earnestly  invoked  for  the  counteraction 
of  the  scheme  to  procure  an  incorporation  of  Dissenting  Min- 
isters in  the  Colonies,  and  that  in  the  Maryland  letter  refer- 
ence is  made  to  a  certain  plan  of  the  proposed  Episcopate  as 
designed  to  remove  any  reasonable  objection  to  It.  All  of 
these  points  obviously  bear  directly  upon  the  effort  to  procure 


82  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEADURY. 

the  Episcopate,  and  it  may  be  imagined  that  those  to  whom 
for  any  reason  that  project  might  be  disagreeable  would  find 
ground  for  offense  in  the  action  taken  by  the  Convention  so 
far  as  it  was  known  to  them.  Nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that 
the  alert  intelligence  of  more  than  sixty  of  the  unepiscopal 
ministry  in  New  York,  at  the  time  that  the  Convention  was 
held  there,  would  fail  to  acquire  some  information  as  to  the 
general  nature  at  least  of  its  proceedings  in  regard  to  a  matter 
to  which  they  were  vehemently  opposed;  nor  that  this  infor- 
mation would  fail  to  spread,  with  more  of  increase  than 
diminution,  throughout  the  ranks  of  those  in  the  Colonies  who 
were  jealously  apprehensive  of  any  movement  toward  the  ac- 
quiring of  the  Episcopate.  It  is  not  surprising  therefore  to 
find  so  distinguished  and  influential  a  Divine  as  the  Rev'^. 
Dr.  Ezra  Stiles,  of  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  much  disturbed 
by  rumours  which  had  reached  him  in  regard  to  the  actions  of 
the  Convention,  and  very  desirous  to  trace  them  to  an  au- 
thentic source.*  For  this  purpose  he  addressed  himself  to  the 
Secretary,  in  a  letter  which,  with  the  answer  to  it,  will  now 
be  laid  before  the  reader.  Before  giving  room  to  this  corre- 
spondence, however,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  proposed  plan 
for  the  Episcopate,  which  is  referred  to  therein,  and  also  in 
the  Maryland  letter  above  noted,  is  that  which  had  been  set 
forth  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler,  Rector  and 
Missionary  in  Elizabethtown,  New  Jersey,  in  a  paper  pub- 
lished under  the  title  of  an  "  Appeal  to  the  Public  in  behalf  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  America,"  not  long  before  the  date 
of  Dr.  Stiles'  letter. 

It  should  also  be  stated  that  the  letter  of  Dr.  Stiles  to  the 
Secretary   was   not  the  only   animadversion   made   upon   the 

4.  Dr.  Stiles  was  born  in  1727;  graduated  at  Yale  College  1746; 
Minister  of  Congregational  Church,  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  October 
22,  1755;  President  of  Yale  College  from  1777  to  his  death  in  1795. 
Blake's  Biographical  Dictionary. 


THE   RECTORATE   OF    ST.    PETER'S,    WEST   CHESTER.  83 

course  pursued  by  the  Convention.  An  attack  had  been  pub- 
licly made  upon  the  Convention,  which  had  drawn  out  a  letter 
in  its  defence  from  the  Secretary,  published  in  Mr.  Gaine's 
Gazette  of  Monday,  March  28,  1768,  being  as  follows :  ^ 

"  AN    ADVERTISEMENT    TO    THE    PUBLIC. 

Whereas  an  anonymous  writer  who  styles  himself  The 
American  Whig  in  his  last  Monday's  publication  viz.  No.  II 
hath  accused  "  a  certain  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy 
here  "  of  having  transmitted  "  seven  petitions  to  some  of  the 
most  respectable  personages  in  England  earnestly  soliciting 
Bishops  for  America ;  representing  the  deplorable  condition  of 
an  Unmitred  Church,  &c,  and  not  sparing  very  injurious  re- 
flections upon  our  other  denominations  as  seditious  Incendiar- 
ies and  disaffected  to  King  and  Government,"  I  beg  leave  to 
observe  that  I  have  acted  as  Secretary  to  the  Convention  from 
its  first  formation,  and  have  particularly  attended  to,  and  care- 
fully read  every  petition  they  have  transmitted  to  England, 
**  soliciting  Bishops  for  America ;"  and  I  do  affirm  that  the 
Convention  have  never  made  any  "  injurious  reflection  upon 
the  other  Denominations,"  or  as  "  disaffected  to  the  King  and 
Government."  I  do  moreover  affirm  and  declare,  that  this 
assertion  of  the  American  Whig,  is  absolutely,  utterly  and 
entirely  false  and  groundless  and  I  hereby  call  upon  him  in 
this  open  manner,  both  as  a  member  of,  and  as  Secretary  to, 
the  Convention  publicly  to  produce  the  authorities  upon  which 
he  has  asserted  so  infamous  a  falsehood. 

In  this  case  the  most  positive  proof  is  insisted  on,  nor  will 
the  respectable  public  be  put  off  with  a  poor,  simple,  "  We  are 
told  "  which  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

Should  any  person  think  I  do  not  treat  this  writer  with 
proper  respect   let  him   turn   to   the   last  paragraph   of   the 

5.  From  a  copy  furnished  to  me  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Hooper. 


84  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

.American  Whig  No.  I,  where  Dr.  Chandler  and  the  Convention 
(Gentlemen  at  least  as  respectable  as  himself)  are  in  fact 
accused  of  the  grossest  falsehood  and  deceit,  in  pretending  to 
ask  for  a  Bishop  only  upon  the  plan  proposed  in  the  Appeal 
while  it  is  "  not  the  primitive  Christian  Bishop  that  they 
want :"     But  &c  " 

Such  a  piece  of  effrontery  and  Malice  I  think  deserves  and 
would  justify  worse  treatment  than  a  regard  to  my  own 
character  would  suffer  me  to  give  him. 

S.  Seabury. 

March  23,  1768." 

With  this  introduction  we  may  come  to  the  letter  of  Dr. 
Stiles  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention,  and  the  answer 
of  the  Secretary  thereto,  which  shall  conclude  the  present 
chapter. 

"  Newport,  8th  Mar.,  1768. 
Reverend  Sir 

The  letters  addressed  by  your  Episcopal  Convention  to  the 
King's  Majesty,  Several  Dignitaries  in  the  Church,  the  two 
English  Universities,  and  to  the  Society,  relate  to  a  matter  of 
public  consequence,  and  of  too  great  importance  not  to  be 
attended  to  by  all  America  —  by  far  the  greater  part  of  which 
is,  and  doubtless  through  all  American  ages  will  continue  to 
be  Dissenters  —  even  should  the  whole  expanded  territory 
from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Atlantic  be  covered  with  Epis- 
copacy and  Episcopal  reverence  most  assuredly  projected  for 
it.  Dr.  Chandler  has  asked  our  objections  to  an  Episcopatei 
here.  He  finds  we  have  as  many  as  Holland,  Germany,  Swe- 
den, the  whole  protestant  world  except  your  church  would 
have  to  the  introduction  of  it  within  their  territories  respec- 
tively. The  whole  Dispute  is  now  before  the  public.  These 
letters  gave  us  the  first  notice  of  a  formal  application.  But 
the  genuineness  of  the  copies  we  have  seen  is  disputed.     I 


THE   RECTOR.\TE   OF   ST.    PETER's,    WEST   CHESTER.  85 

therefore  apply  myself  to  you,  Sir,  as  Secretary  of  the  Con- 
vention, for  authentic  copies  of  each,  at  least  of  that  to  the 
King,  certified  under  your  hand  as  Secretary.  In  this  age  of 
truth  and  liberty,  the  records  of  all  ecclesiastical  bodies  in  the 
Protestant  world,  we  presume  lie  open  to  public  view  and 
Examination;  and  extracts  and  copies  of  the  proceedings 
thereof  are  freely  permitted.  But  if  any  of  the  transactions 
of  your  Convention  should  be  of  a  more  restricted  nature,  yet 
those  relative  to  Prelacy  and  the  Imploring  of  Bishops  cannot 
be  such  and  least  of  all  the  letters  in  question.  According  to 
the  copies  we  have  seen,  the  Dissenters,  that  most  respectable 
body  in  America,  are  represented  by  more  than  implication, 
as  Revilers  of  the  State,  of  perverse  dispositions,  as  dangerous 
to  Monarchy  and  unworthy  the  King's  Clemency  and  Protec- 
tion. Our  Loyalty  to  the  Sovereigns  of  the  House  of  Han- 
over, our  Love  and  Reverence  for  the  British  Constitution 
have  been  so  conspicuous  that  we  cannot  submit  to  be  thus 
represented  to  the  Parent  State.  You,  Sir,  have  said  in  the 
public  prints  that  no  such  representation  has  been  made.  It 
will  be  a  pleasure.  Sir,  to  find  your  declaration  confirmed  by 
an  inspection  of  authentical  copies  of  those  seven  Letters.  It 
is.  Sir,  for  this  end  I  ask  them  and  I  am  sure  your  candor  and 
politeness  will  most  freely,  most  readily  grant  my  request. 
Though  we  differ  in  Sentiments  as  to  the  external  Policy  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  yet  I  sincerely  wish  the  Divine  Blessing 
upon  all  your  labors  in  persuading  sinners  to  be  reconciled  to 
God  and  to  become  sincere  disciples  of  the  Blessed  JESUS. 
I  send  you  this  through  the  hands  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Rodgers 
of  New  York.  Be  so  kind  as  to  commit  your  letter  to  his  care 
and  it  will  be  securely  forwarded  to,  Reverend  Sir, 

your  most  obedient 
Very  humble  ser 

Ezra  Stiles. 
Rev.  Mr.  Seabury." 


86  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

To  Dr.  Stiles. 

"  In  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  8th  March  which  I  did 
not  receive  till  the  8th  May  I  must  inform  you  that  I  am 
precluded  by  a  rule  of  the  Convention  from  giving  out  any 
copies  of  Minutes  or  papers  committed  to  my  care  without  an 
order  of  the  Convention.  I  have  however  shewed  your  Letter 
to  two  or  three  of  my  Brethren,  and  their  Sentiments  as  well 
as  my  own  are,  that  the  manifest  unaccountable  want  of  can- 
dor in  the  opposers  of  an  American  Episcopate,  upon  the 
proposed  plan,  is  so  very  great,  that  they  cannot  think  it  a 
proper  time  to  make  public  any  of  those  Letters  which  you 
mention.  Several  persons  who  were  consulted  with  regard  to 
the  propriety  of  Dr.  Chandler's  publishing  his  appeal,  at  the 
time  it  was  published  predicted  the  very  treatment,  it,  and  its 
author,  and  the  whole  body  of  Clergy  met  with.  I  was,  I 
confess  of  a  different  opinion :  I  had  such  favorable  senti- 
ments of  the  Candor  and  friendly  disposition  of  the  Dissenters, 
that  I  imagined,  they  w^ould  have  calmly  and  soberly  pointed 
out  the  disadvantages  they  apprehended  from  the  proposed 
plan  that  they  might  have  been  removed.  The  consequence 
has  been  the  plan  is  approved  but  the  thing  opposed.  Now  to 
suppose  an  American  Episcopate  upon  any  other  plan  than 
the  one  proposed,  is  fighting  with  a  shadow,  a  mere  non- 
entity. But  to  do  this  in  such  an  illiberal,  abusive,  scurrilous 
manner  as  has  been  done  here,  argues  so  bad  a  disposition, 
that  I  have  no  inclination  to  give  a  name  to  it.  The  whole 
Body  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Church,  have  been  represented  by 
the  American  Whig,  as  Tories,  that  is  in  the  estimation  of 
that  Faction,  Traitors  and  Rebels  to  their  King  and  country. 
The  Convention  has  been  represented  as  a  number  of  false 
deceitful  men,  pretending  to  ask  for  one  thing,  while  they 
really  are  aiming  at  another.  When  I  denied  publicly,  that 
any  accusation  was  made  against  the  loyalty  of  Dissenters;  I 


THE   RECTORATE   OF    ST.    PETER*S,    WEST    CHESTER.  87 

was  represented  as  a  furious  fellow,  too  much  in  a  passion  to 
know  what  he  said  —  and  that  I  really  had  affirmed  a  matter 
of  fact,  of  which  it  was  impossible  I  could  be  a  competent 
judge.  Consider  these  things,  Sir,  and  judge  yourself, 
whether  there  is  that  probability  of  Candour  and  moderation 
among  the  Dissenters,  which  is  sufficient  to  induce  us  to  a 
Compliance  with  your  demand.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  imagine 
that  Dr.  Stiles  is  thus  void  of  candour  and  moderation  —  but. 
then  it  cannot  be  thought  that  Dr.  Stiles  wants  those  copies 
solely  for  his  own  inspection,  and  that  no  other  person  is  to 
see  them.  With  regard  to  the  authenticity  of  those  copies 
which  you  intimate  are  abroad,  I  can  say  nothing.  Those  per- 
sons who  know  from  whom  and  by  what  means  they  were  ob- 
tained are  the  best  judges  of  that. 

And  with  regard  to  an  ''  Ecclesiastical  Reverence  most  as- 
suredly projected  for  an  Episcopate,  which  is  to  cover  the 
whole  expanded  Territory  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  At- 
lantic," I  really  Sir,  never  heard,  either  of  such  an  Episcopate, 
or  of  such  a  reverence. 

I  must  also  express  my  doubts,  relating  to  the  proceedings 
of  all  ecclesiastical  Bodies  being  so  open  to  public  view  and 
examination,  as  freely  to  permit  copies  and  extracts  of  their 
proceedings  to  be  taken.  If  that  is  the  case,  I  would  propose 
an  expedient,  that  possibly  would  satisfy  all  parties,  viz.  let 
the  Convention  and  the  Synod  publish  all  their  proceedings, 
letters  &c  and  then  the  public  would  be  competent  judges, 
whether  the  Church  or  Dissenters  entertained  sentiments  the 
most  favorable  to  universal  liberty  of  conscience. 

I  have  Sir,  indulged  the  same  liberty  of  thought  and  expres- 
sion, which  you  have  in  your  letter,  and  which  I  conclude  will 
not  be  disagreeable  to  you.  I  shall  conclude  with  assuring  you 
that  the  Episcopate  for  America  which  we  have  so  much  at 
heart,  is  upon  the  plan  in  the  appeal  and  no  other.  If  there 
are  any  inconveniences  which  they  apprehend  from  this  plan, 


88  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

when  they  are  coolly  and  candidly  pointed  out,  we  will  join 
our  endeavours  to  yours  to  get  them  removed. 
I  am  Sir  your  most  obedient, 

humble  servant 

Samuel  Seabury. 
June  4th,  1768." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  B.  W.  CONTROVERSY. 

I 768-1 769. 

IT  is  evidence  of  increasing  general  interest  in  the  political 
questions  of  the  day,  and  in  such  Ecclesiastical  questions 
as  had  a  bearing  upon  them,  that  some  of  the  Public 
Journals  should  have  set  aside  columns  for  their  particular 
discussion;  and  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  private  con- 
troversies sometimes  grew  out  of  these  public  discussions.  In 
the  paper  published  with  the  title  of  ''  The  New  York  Ga- 
zette or  the  Weekly  Post  Boy  "  there  appeared  for  some  time 
certain  columns  under  the  caption  of  ''  The  American  Whig," 
the  chief  influence  in  which  came  from  Governor  Livingston; 
and  in  the  "  New  York  Gazette  and  the  Mercury,"  printed  by 
Hugh  Gaines,  certain  columns  were  appropriated  to  a  series  of 
papers  entitled  "  A  Whip  for  the  American  Whig,"  these  being 
under  the  Editorial  supervision  of  "  Timothy  Tickle  Esqr," 
a  nom  de  plume  of  several  associated  writers,  very  active  and 
conspicuous  among  whom  was  the  Rector  of  West  Chester. 
The  efforts  of  the  American  Whig  were  supplemented,  more- 
over, by  the  special  attention  to  its  opponent  bestowed  under 
the  title  of  "  A  kick  for  the  Whipper  by  Sir  Isaac  Foote." 
With  such  pleasing  and  suggestive  metaphor  were  our  an- 
cestors accustomed  to  divert  themselves  and  the  public  of 
their  day. 

In  the  Whip  for  the  American  Whig,  of  July  4,  1768,  ap- 
peared a  letter  which  animadverted  rather  severely,  though  it 

89 


li 


90  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

must  be  admitted  much  in  accordance  with  the  manners  of  the 
times  on  all  sides  exhibited,  upon  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chauncey,  an 
eminent  Boston  Divine  v^ho  it  v^ould  appear  had  argued  against 
the  necessity  of  Bishops,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  no  in- 
superable hardship  to  go  to  England  for  ordination  when  the 
expenses  of  the  voyage  were  provided  for  by  the  Society. 
The  contributor  to  the  Whip  signs  himself  an  Independent, 
and  dates  his  letter  from  Philadelphia  June  15,  1768.  In  his 
letter  he  charges  that  the  Doctor  *'has  acted  altogether  be- 
neath the  character  of  an  honest  man;"  and  he  continues, 
*'  Out  of  the  many  falsehoods  he  has  published,  I  shall  at  this 
time  select  but  one,  which  is  this;  that  all  the  candidates  for 
Holy  Orders  in  the  Church  of  England,  have  the  expenses  of 
their  voyage  home,  paid  by  the  Society,  &c.  The  Society  as  I 
and  every  one  else  can  see,  publish  every  year  an  exact  ac- 
count of  the  monies  they  receive,  and  of  the  purposes  to  which 
they  are  applied.  If  he  can  produce  one  instance,  wherein  the 
expenses  of  any  one  Candidate  for  Orders  have  been  defrayed 
in  the  manner  he  mentions,  it  is  more  than  I  have  ever  seen ; 
and  I  think  from  my  scrupidous  inspection  into  the  Society's 
abstracts,  I  may  venture  to  affirm  that  none  is  to  be  found." 

It  may  appear  from  this  extract,  that  the  long  and  rather 
tart  letter  from  which  it  is  taken  had  for  its  motive  to  discredit 
Dr.  Chauncey,  and  to  make  his  utterances  as  to  the  Episcopate 
seem  unworthy  of  attention;  and  it  may  be  inferred  that  this 
was  naturally  and  properly  displeasing  to  him.  If  he  had  re- 
plied directly  to  it,  and  shown  that  it  had  misrepresented  him, 
his  action  would  have  been  unexceptionable.  Unfortunately, 
however,  he  pursued  a  different  course,  and  one  that  caused 
much  trouble  and  anxiety  to  others,  and  certainly  was  very  far 
from  enhancing  his  own  reputation.  He  allowed  himself  to  be 
defended  by  another  person  who  wrote  a  paper,  which  he 
himself  forwarded  to  the  American  Whig;  and  to  which  he 
himself  appended  a  signature  not  his  own,  nor  only  so  but  a 


THE    B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  9I 

signature  that  apparently  indicated  another  person  by  whom 
it  was  afterwards  distinctly  repudiated. 

The  defence  set  up  by  this  paper  was  that  Dr.  Chauncey  had 
not  used  the  language  attributed  to  him  by  Independent,  and 
the  paper  alleged  that  what  the  Doctor  had  said  was  "  that 
the  Society  has  publicly  given  an  invitation  to  all  the  Colony 
students,  who  desire  Episcopal  Ordination,  to  come  to  Eng- 
land, assuring  them  that  their  expenses  in  going  to,  and  re- 
turning from  thence,  shall  be  defrayed  by  the  Society;"  that 
the  Doctor  had  faithfully  referred  his  readers  to  the  very 
abstract  and  page,  in  which  the  invitation  and  promise  are 
contained ;"  that  unless  this  undertaking  can  be  disproved,  or 
proved  to  have  been  revoked  by  the  Society  "  they  are  bound  in 
strict  justice  to  defray  the  expense  any  young  students,  who 
go  to  England  for  Episcopal  Ordination,  are  put  to  on  this 
account,  unless  it  is  paid  in  some  other  way.  This,"  continues 
the  writer,  "  is  all  the  Doctor  wanted,  or  had  in  view,  in  order 
to  a  full  proof  of  the  point  in  debate,  namely  that  the  want  of 
a  Bishop  in  America  was  no  great  hardship  to  Candidates, 
on  account  of  the  expense  that  would  arise  from  their  crossing 
the  Atlantic."  The  reason  why  the  expenses  of  this  kind 
had  not  in  fact  been  defrayed  by  the  Society  for  some  time, 
the  writer  says,  has  been  that  there  was  no  need  of  it,  "  as 
this  expense  has  been  paid  not  by  the  Candidates  themselves, 
but  by  the  communities,  who  expect  the  benefit  of  their  la- 
bours, or  by  private  donations ;"  adding  that  he  himself 
had  been  often  appealed  to  for  help  in  such  cases,  which  he 
had  always  been  free  to  afford. 

Now  this  certainly  is  a  very  good  and  sufficient  answer  to 
the  offensive  charge  of  *^  Independent,"  and  unless  he  could 
impugn  the  truth  of  the  answer,  it  would  have  been  demon- 
strated that  he  had  made  an  unjustifiable  attack.  If  the 
Doctor  had  made  this  answer  himself,  or  if  his  friend  had 
been  content  to  confine  himself  to  this  defence,  nothing  more 


92  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

had  needed  to  be  said,  or  probably  would  have  been  said.  But 
as  they  who  take  the  sword  perish  by  the  sword,  so  the  Doctor, 
in  his  readiness  not  merely  to  defend  himself,  but  to  wield  the 
trenchant  weapons  of  offence  which  were  supplied  to  him, 
and  which  he  even  sharpened  with  the  edge  of  his  own  inven- 
tion, involved  himself  in  hopeless  difficulty. 

The  writer  of  the  paper  which  the  Doctor  procured  to  be 
published  in  his  defence,  attributes  the  letter  of  "  Independent  " 
to  Mr.  Seabury  in  the  following  opening  sentence :  "  I  ob- 
serve that  Mr.  S — ^b — r — y,  as  I  suppose,  in  his  paper,  printed 
in  the  New  York  Gazette  of  July  4th,  very  decently  for  a 
clergyman,  gives  Dr.  Chauncey  the  lie;"  and,  having  thus 
shown  that  he  intends  his  remarks  for  Mr.  Seabury,  proceeds 
to  impute  to  him  the  suppression  of  the  truth  known  to  him 
in  regard  to  the  charge  against  the  Doctor  while  he  de- 
claimed against  falsehood ;  and,  after  some  other  compliments, 
concludes  as  follows: 

"  I  shall  not  think  it  improper  to  let  this  over  zealous 
writer  know,  that  I  am  not  only  a  son  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, a  real  and  hearty  friend  to  its  growth  and  prosperity, 
but  one  who  has  the  honour  of  being  a  member  of  the  Incor- 
porated Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign 
parts.  I  am  also  a  friend  of  decency,  good  manners,  and  a 
becoming  treatment,  especially,  of  respectable  characters,  and 
what  is  more  I  am  a  friend  to  truth  and  honest  impartiality ; 
and  as  I  am  fully  convinced  that  the  representations  the  So- 
ciety have  had  from  this  side  the  water  are,  in  many  in- 
stances, not  only  unfair,  but  notoriously  false;  I  am  obliged 
to  say,  what  I  really  think,  that  the  greatest  occasion  we,  at 
present,  have  for  a  Bishop  in  America  is,  to  correct  and  keep 
in  order  such  troublesome  persons  as  this  associate  with  the 
American  Whig  Whipper  appears  to  be;  who  with  some 
others  of  the  like  malevolent  spirit,  have  impertinently  dis- 
turbed the  quiet  of  this  Country  for  some  time  past." 


THE   B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  93 

It  is  manifest  from  all  this  that  the  champion  of  Dr.  Chaun- 
cey,  not  content  with  defence,  was  venting  his  anger  upon  Mr. 
Seabury,  for  what  he  characterizes  as  his  rude  and  injurious 
reflections,  and  holding  him  up  to  the  public  as  a  troublesome 
person,  of  a  malevolent  spirit,  who  had  impertinently  dis- 
turbed the  quiet  of  the  Country  for  some  time  past. 

If  his  supposition  that  Mr.  Seabury  was  the  author  of  the 
letter  objected  to  had  been  correct,  no  exception  could  be  taken 
to  his  holding  him  responsible  for  it;  though  it  would  seem 
that  to  charge  him  with  error,  or  even  deceit  in  the  presenta- 
tion of  facts  alleged  against  Dr.  Chauncey  would  have  been 
sufficient,  without  accusing  him  of  so  many  faults,  and  of 
being  so  very  troublesome  as  even  to  justify  the  importation 
of  a  Bishop  to  keep  him  in  order  —  which,  considering  the 
aversion  of  Dr.  Chauncey  and  his  friends  to  such  an  importa- 
tion, was  really  going  very  far  indeed. 

But  in  fact  the  supposition  of  the  writer  was  entirely  er- 
roneous. Of  the  charge  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  letter 
of  "  Independent,"  Mr.  Seabury  says,  in  his  statement  con- 
tributed to  "  The  Whip  for  the  American  Whig  "  of  December 
19th  &  26th,  1768,  "  I  positively  declare,  that  I  was  so  far 
from  being  the  author  of  the  paper  to  which  he  refers,  that  I 
never  saw  it,  heard  it,  thought  of  it,  or  dreamed  of  it,  'till  it 
made  its  public  appearance  in  Mr.  Gaine's  Paper  of  July  the 
4th." 

Mr.  Seabury  was  then  in  this  position.  He  had  been  held 
up  before  the  public  charged  with  an  unjust  and  unseemly 
action  for  which  he  was  in  no  way  responsible,  and  severely 
condemned  not  only  for  a  fault  falsely  alleged  and  wholly 
unproved  against  him,  but  also  for  the  general  course  of  his 
life  and  conduct  both  as  to  motive  and  act,  which  had  been 
stigmatized  in  most  odious  and  opprobrious  terms.  The 
weight  of  this  unjustifiable  attack,  moreover,  was  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  reputation  of  the  source  from  which  it  had 


94  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

apparently  proceeded.  The  paper  was  signed  with  the  ini- 
tials 13.  W. ;  and  these  initials,  taken  together  with  the  writer's 
allusions  to  himself,  seemed  to  point  to  one  who  was  a  man 
well  known  and  highly  esteemed,  condemnation  from  whom 
was  a  matter  of  very  serious  import  in  the  community.  The 
inference  was  obvious :  whether  intended  to  be  drawn  or  not, 
it  could  hardly  fail  to  be  drawn,  and  in  fact  actually  was 
drawn.  Yet,  as  the  name  was  not  printed,  the  authorship  was 
still  matter  of  inference  and  not  of  certainty.  It  was  there- 
fore necessary  for  the  object  of  the  attack  to  trace  it  to  its 
source,  and  place  the  responsibility  for  it  where  it  properly 
belonged;  and  to  this  end,  with  characteristic  acumen,  force, 
and  tenacity  of  purpose,  he  forthwith  addressed  himself. 

His  first  recourse  was  to  James  Parker  the  printer  of  the 
American  Whig,  who  had  introduced  the  publication  of  the 
B.  W.  letter  in  the  issue  of  August  29th,  1768,  with  the  fol- 
lowing preface : 

"  The  printer  thought  proper  to  inform  the  public  that  he 
received  the  following  letter  from  a  gentleman  of  figure  in 
Boston,  who  has,  several  years  past,  been  a  member  of  the 
Society  for  propagating  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts ;  and  lest 
any  person  should  doubt  the  genuineness  of  this  letter,  the 
Printer  hereby  gives  notice,  that  the  original  is  now  in  his 
hands,  and  ready  to  be  shown  to  any  person  who  is  desirous 
of  satisfaction  on  this  head."  The  letter  then  follows,  dated 
"  Boston,  August  5,  1768,"  and  addressed  to  *'  Mr.  James 
Parker  Printer  of  the  American  Whig." 

In  describing  his  call  on  Mr.  Parker,  Mr.  Seabury  writes 
in  his  letter  to  the  Whip  above  cited,  that  in  response  to  his 
request  to  see  the  original  letter,  Mr.  Parker  showed  him  a 
paper  signed  only  B.  W.,  and  dated  at  Boston ;  that  he  noticed 
that  the  direction  at  the  head  of  the  paper  and  he  thought  also 
the  date  at  Boston  were  in  a  different  hand  and  ink.  ''  Upon 
my  expressing  my  surprise,  that  he  should  produce  this  paper 


THE   B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  95 

signed  only  B.  W.  as  an  original  letter  "  from  a  gentleman  of 
figure  in  Boston,"  and  demanding  of  him  who  the  author  was, 
Mr.  Parker  after  some  shuffling  and  hesitation,  named  Benning 
Wentworth  Esqr.,  late  Governor  of  the  Province  of  New 
Hampshire,  as  the  author ;  and  affirmed  that  the  written  paper 
he  then  showed  me,  was  his  handwriting.  Being  asked  by  me 
whether  he  (Parker)  had  received  the  written  paper  signed 
B.  W.  from  the  late  Governor  Wentworth,  he  replied  that  he 
himself  did  not  receive  it;  but  that  it  was  sent  by  Dr.  Chaun- 
cey,  of  Boston,  to  some  gentlemen  of  this  City,  to  be  published 
in  his  paper." 

Mr.  Parker  having  in  this  and  another  interview  repeatedly 
declared  and  offered  to  prove  that  Benning  Wentworth  was 
the  writer  of  the  letter,  and  having  also  made  the  same  state- 
ment to  others,  a  letter  was  written  by  a  gentleman  to  a 
friend  in  Portsmouth  who  in  his  reply  enclosed  the  following 
note  : 

"  Portsmouth,  Sept.  i8,  1768. 

In   the   short  time   I  have  had  to  consider  of  the  letter 

signed  B.  W.  which  Mr. advises  one  Parker  had  printed 

in  his  paper  of  the  29th  August  past,  I  can  only  at  present 
assert,  that  the  contents  and  every  clause  therein  contained  is  a 
villainous  piece  of  forgery :  and  if  any  measures  can  be  taken 
to  obtain  the  original  letter,  the  villains  may  be  discovered :  and 
if  that  cannot  be  effected,  and  a  legal  prosecution  of  Parker, 
will  answer,  or  be  serviceable,  I  will  be  at  the  expense. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Your  most  humble  servant 

B.  Wentworth." 

Unaware  of  this  letter,  Parker,  reiterating  his  assertion  that 
the  letter  was  written  by  Wentworth,  and  being  required  to  pro- 
duce the  proofs  which  he  had  offered,  referred  Mr.  Seabury 
to  Mr,  Thomas  Smith  an  attorney  who,  he  said,  had  them  in  his 


96  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

hands.  jNIr.  Smith's  testimony,  on  application  to  him,  was 
that  he  had  given  the  letter  to  Parker  to  be  printed,  having 
received  it  from  Mr.  Rogers,  who  received  it  enclosed  in  a 
letter  from  Dr.  Chauncey,  who  received  it  from  the  gentleman 
himself  in  Boston;  that  it  was  not  in  Mr.  Wentworth's  hand- 
writing, as  he  was  an  old  man  and  could  not  write,  but  that  it 
was  written  by  his  order  and  by  him  signed  B.  W.,  and  given 
by  him  to  Dr.  Chauncey,  who  enclosed  it  to  Mr.  Rogers,  who 
delivered  it  to  him  (Thomas  Smith)  who  put  it  into  the  hands 
of  Parker,  who  printed  it  in  his  paper. 

Mr.  Rogers  being  next  visited,  and  affording  some  needed 
refreshment  in  the  enquiry  by  behaving  "  with  great  open- 
ness and  candour,"  readily  gave  Mr.  Seabury  a  sight  of  Dr. 
Chauncey's  letter  to  him,  from  which  it  appeared  ''  that  the 
letter  signed  B.  W.  was  written  by  an  inhabitant  of  the  town 
of  Boston;  an  Episcopalian  by  principle  and  education,  and 
for  several  years  past  a  member  of  the  Society  for  the  propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel."  The  letter  did  not  further  identify 
B.  W.,  nor  had  Dr.  Chauncey  mentioned  the  name  of  the 
writer  to  Mr.  Rogers,  who  declared  that  he  did  not  know  and 
never  had  heard  who  he  was. 

The  range  of  inquiry  was  now,  however,  becoming  more 
limited.  Mr.  Parker  had  described  the  writer  as  "  a  gentleman 
of  figure  in  Boston "  and  a  member  of  the  Society.  The 
writer,  dating  from  Boston,  had  described  himself  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Society ;  and  Dr.  Chauncey's  letter  to  Mr.  Rogers 
described  him  as  an  inhabitant  of  Boston  and  a  member  of 
the  Society.  Mr.  Attorney  Smith,  claiming  that  the  writer 
was  Benning  Wentworth,  said  that  though  Mr.  Wentworth 
did  not  live  in  Boston,  he  was  in  Boston  when  the  letter  was 
written  by  his  order,  and  signed  B.  W.  by  him:  and  Mr. 
Wentworth  having  been  eliminated  from  the  possibilities  by 
his  explicit  disclaimer  of  the  letter,  it  only  remained  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  other  members  of  the  Society  in  the  capacity 


THE    B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  97 

of  gentlemen  of  figure  in  Boston,  would  take  the  same  ground. 
Of  these  there  were  six,  Governor  Bernard  of  Massachusetts 
being  one.  To  all  of  these  application  was  duly  made,  and  by 
them  all  except  one  a  disavowal  was  made  equally  explicit  with 
that  of  Governor  Wentworth. 

This,  however,  was  a  development  later  than  the  publica- 
tion of  Mr.  Seabury's  letter  of  December  19th,  26th,  1768, 
above  cited,  at  which  time  he  had  no  other  knowledge  as  to 
the  authorship  of  the  letter  than  that  it  did  not  belong  to 
Governor  Wentworth.  He,  therefore,  called  upon  Dr.  Chaun- 
cey,  who  had  caused  it  to  be  published,  either  to  produce  the 
name  of  the  author  from  whom  he  received  it,  or  else  to  be 
himself  held  responsible  for  it.  Who  B.  W.  is,  he  says,  he 
knows  not;  but  referring  to  the  letter  so  signed  he  observes: 

"  The  author  has  declared  himself  a  member  of  the  Society 
for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel;  and  Dr.  Chauncey  says  (if 
I  remember  right)  in  his  letter  to  Mr,  Rogers,  "  that  he  is  an 
inhabitant  of  the  town  of  Boston."  I  have  carefully  examined 
the  list  of  the  Society's  members  for  the  year  1767.  I  can 
find  only  four  members  who  reside  in  Boston,  viz.  His  Ex- 
cellency Francis  Bernard,  James  Apthorp,  Hugh  Hall,  and 
John  Temple  Esqrs.  To  all  these  gentlemen  I  am  personally 
unknown.  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  that  I  have  ever 
given  occasion  to  them  to  treat  me  in  so  injurious  and  cruel  a 
manner,  as  I  find  myself  treated  in  that  letter.  I  cannot 
therefore  suppose,  that  any  one  of  these  gentlemen  was  the 
author  of  it.  It  remains  then  with  Dr.  Chauncey  to  produce 
his  author  or  to  take  the  letter,  with  all  its  fraud,  forgery, 
villainy,  scandal,  falsehood,  and  baseness  upon  himself.  To 
you  therefore,  most  venerable  Doctor,  I  now  beg  leave  to 
address  myself." 

Under  date  of  January  30,  1769,  Mr.  Thomas  Brown,  a 
resident  of  Boston  who  describes  himself  as  "  an  Episcoparian 
by  principle  and  practice  and  a  member  of  Christ  Church  in 


98  MEMOIR   OF   BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

this  town,"  writes  to  Mr.  Seabury  referring  to  his  letter  which 
he  had  accidentally  seen  in  a  New  York  paper,  and  expressing 
his  displeasure  at  the  method  used  in  the  defence  of  Dr. 
Chauncey.  "  From  many  circumstances,"  he  says,  *'  attending 
this  affair  according  to  your  representation,  I  was  led  to  think 
it  would  be  impracticable  for  the  Doctor  to  vindicate  his  con- 
duct to  the  satisfaction  of  any  unprejudiced  man;  and  as  the 
York  papers  are  read  but  by  few  people  here,  imagined  I 
should  in  some  measure  serve  the  cause  of  truth  and  Epis- 
copacy by  endeavouring  to  get  your  letter  reprinted  here. 
I  .  .  .  accordingly  .  .  .  got  your  letter  inserted  in 
Edes  and  Gills'  Liberty  Paper;  and  in  the  same  paper  of  this 
day  the  Doctor  has  vouchsafed  to  reply :  though  I  must  say  no 
ways  satisfactory  to  me.  .  .  .  The  piece  signed  B.  which 
attends  the  Doctor's  performance,  I  can  pretty  well  assure  you 
is  fictitious." 

Dr.  Chauncey's  letter,  including  a  note  to  Edes  and  Gill,  and 
a  reprint  of  the  letter  of  "  Independent ;  "  and  accompanied  by 
a  letter  purporting  to  come  from  the  author  of  the  B.  W. 
Letter  which  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  Brown  as  signed  B.,  admits 
that  he  had  dated  and  addressed  the  letter  attacking  Mr.  Sea- 
bury,  and  that  he  had  affixed  the  letters  B.  W.  by  way  of 
signature;  but  claims  that  these  actions  were  quite  within  his 
rights,  and  were  devoid  of  improper  motive.  "  Of  what 
significancy  is  it,"  he  says,  "  who  directed,  or  who  dated  that 
paper  ?  Is  there  the  least  connection  between  ''  villainously 
forging  "  a  paper,  and  giving  date  and  direction  to  it  after  it 
had  been  wrote?  Did  you  see.  Sir,  any  mark  of  a  different 
hand  in  the  paper  itself,  or  any  sign  of  adulteration?  You 
don't  pretend  that  you  did ;  nor  indeed  could  you :  for  it  was 
transmitted  by  me.  as  put  into  my  hands,  without  the  addition, 
or  alteration,  of  a  single  word,  letter  or  so  much  as  point. 
The  plain  truth  is  that  paper  had  originally  neither  direction, 
or  date.     But  as  it  was  given  in  vindication  of  my  character, 


THE    B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  99 

which  had  been  attacked  at  New  York,  I  tho't  it  quite  need- 
less, when  I  had  determined  to  send  it  there  to  be  printed,  to 
put  myself  to  the  trouble  of  going  to  the  author  to  give  it  date 
and  direction.  I  therefore  did  it  myself.  And  any  one  else 
might  have  done  it,  without  doing  any  harm.  Most  certainly 
it  could  have  hurt  nobody,  unless  the  Author  of  it,  and  when 
he  complains  of  being  injured,  I  will  give  him  all  the  satisfac- 
tion he  desires." 

So  much  with  regard  to  the  heading  of  the  letter,  the  pe- 
culiarity of  which,  by  the  way,  seems  only  to  have  been  noted 
by  the  object  of  attack  as  an  unusual  circumstance  suggesting 
the  need  of  a  close  scrutiny  of  the  whole  matter ;  and  then  the 
Doctor  refers  to  the  statements  that  Parker  had  named  Ben- 
ning  Wentworth  as  the  author  of  the  B.  W.  letter  and  offered 
to  prove  that  he  was  so;  and  that  Wentworth  had  asserted 
that  "  the  contents  of  that  letter  and  every  clause  therein  was 
a  villainous  piece  of  forgery :"  "  and,"  continues  the  Doctor, 
"  well  he  might  as  fathered  upon  him.  But  what  relation  has 
all  this  to  me?  Did  I  ever  say,  or  so  much  as  distantly  insin- 
uate to  Mr.  Parker,  or  to  any  other  person  at  New  York,  that 
the  late  G.  Wentworth  was  the  author  of  the  paper  signed 
B.  W.  ?  The  Rev.  Mr.  Rodgers  is  the  only  person  at  New 
York  I  ever  wrote  to ;  and  the  only  letter  I  ever  wrote  to  him, 
relative  to  this  affair,  is  that  which  you  saw.  Was  it  there 
said  that  this  honourable  gentleman,  or  any  other,  pointing 
him  out  by  name,  was  the  author  of  the  paper  that  occasioned 
such  an  outcry?  Nay,  have  you  not  told  the  public  yourself, 
"  that  Mr.  Rodgers  declared  to  you,  that  he  did  not  know  and 
had  never  heard,  who  wrote  the  letter  signed  B.  W.  ?  How 
indeed  should  he  as  I  had  concealed  the  person's  name  from 
him  ?  The  exact  honest  truth  is  this ;  —  The  paper  in  contest 
was  put  naked  into  my  hands.  And  I  wrote  the  signature,  as 
well  as  the  direction  to  the  printer;  but  for  no  other  reason, 
than  that  it  might  appear  as  other  printed  papers  do.     Had 


100  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

the  author  been  at  hand,  I  might  have  desired  him  to  do  it; 
though  I  know  not  that  I  should,  as  it  was  a  matter  of  no 
importance  at  all  who  did  it,  nothing  more  being  intended  than 
to  signify  an  unknown  writer.  I  had  no  view  in  the  choice 
of  the  letters  B.  W.  but  to  avoid  the  name  of  a  real  author. 
I  never  once  reflected  whose  name  the  letters  could  be  applied 
to.  And  as  to  the  honourable  person  mentioned  to  you  at 
New  York,  I  did  not  then  know  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Society  for  propagating  the  Gospel,  nor  do  I  know  it  now  but 
by  your  information;  and  I  can  uprightly  say,  he  never  once 
came  into  my  mind,  till  forced  in  by  hearing  that  the  late 
Governor  Wentworth  had  been  wrote  to  upon  this  matter. 
'Tis  to  me  quite  strange  that  you,  or  any  one  else,  should 
imagine,  that  the  real  author  of  the  Paper  signed  B.  W.  was 
intended  to  be  marked  out  by  these  letters.  Had  this  been 
the  manner  at  New  York  in  the  long  controversy "  that  has 
been  carrying  on  there?  Was  this  the  manner  of  the  Paper 
B.  W.  replied  to?  Did  not  that  writer  assume  a  feigned 
character,  however  awkwardly  he  appeared  in  it  After  all,  if 
you  were  really  led  by  anything  that  was  said  or  done,  by  Mr. 
Parker,  or  any  other  person,  to  suppose  that  the  late  Gov- 
ernor Wentworth  was  designed  by  the  letters  B.  W.  I  am  no 
more  accountable  for  it  than  you  are,  nor  had  any  more  hand 
in  it,  unless  accidentally  by  making  use  of  initial  letters, 
which  though  applicable  to  his  name,  I  never  once  tho't  of,  and 
no  one  had  a  right  to  apply  to  him,  or  any  particular  person 
whatever." 

That  is  to  say.  Dr.  Chauncey  admits  the  fact  that  he  had 
signed  the  letter  with  the  initials  of  a  man  not  only  well 
known  but  of  public  reputation,  and  pleads  that  he  had  no 
intention  of  leaving  it  to  be  inferred  that  those  initials  desig- 
nated the  name  of  that  man  as  the  author ;  although  by  one  with 
no  other  knowledge  of  the  Doctor's  intentions  than  had  ap- 
peared from  his  acts,  it  might  naturally  be  inferred,  and  cer- 


THE    B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  101 

tainly  had  been  inferred,  that  B.  W.  stood  and  was  meant  to 
stand  there  for  Benning  Wentworth.  So  ingenuous  an  atti- 
tude it  pains  one  to  question ;  and  I,  for  my  part,  have  no  in- 
tention to  question  it.  But  as  one  of  that  "  impartial  public," 
to  whom  the  writers  of  that  day  were  so  fond  of  appealing,  and 
in  whose  infallibility  they  seem  to  have  reposed  such  utter  con- 
fidence, I  venture  to  remark  that  in  weighing  testimony  there 
are  sometimes  to  be  considered  circumstances  which  affect  the 
credibility  of  a  witness  in  a  particular  piece  of  evidence, 
whatever  may  be  his  general  reputation  for  veracity:  and  if 
this  attack  upon  Mr.  Seabury,  which  had  been  so  wantonly 
introduced  into  a  defence  of  Dr.  Chauncey,  were,  as  there  is 
some  reason  to  suspect,  concocted  in  the  counsels  of  partisan 
objectors  to  the  Episcopate,  there  would  be  an  obvious  reason 
for  leaving  it  to  be  inferred  that  the  attack  came  from  a  source 
supposed  to  be  favourable  to  Episcopacy,  and  not  connected 
with  the  company  who  opposed  it.  "  I  am  very  suspicious," 
says  Mr.  Brown,  the  writer  from  Boston  above  referred  to, 
under  date  of  March  20,  1769,  "  that  a  knot  of  the  Dissenting 
Clergy  in  this  town  were  well  acquainted  with  the  B.  W.  letter 
before  it  was  sent  to  New  York,  and  am  pretty  confident, 
great  pains  will  be  taken  in  order  to  prevent  a  full  discovery ;" 
and  it  was  consistent  with  the  desire  to  prevent  such  discovery 
that  the  act,  with  its  inevitable  inference,  should  now  be  pal- 
liated on  the  plea  of  a  chance  selection  of  initials  made  with  no 
intention  to  suggest  such  inference. 

And  it  is  fair  also  to  ask  how  far  we  are  called  upon  to 
accept  the  plea  of  absence  of  intention  when  we  find  it  ad- 
vanced not  only  by  Dr.  Chauncey  but  also  by  his  associate  and 
champion.  This  man  has  the  effrontery  to  say,  and  that  in  a 
very  supercilious  manner,  that  he  had  not  said  that  Mr. 
S — b — ^y  was  the  author  of  the  letter  of  "  Independent,"  but 
only  that  he  supposed  he  was ;  and  he  adds,  "  I  here  declare, 
that  I  had  not  the  most  distant  thought  or  design  to  hurt 


102  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Mr.  S — b — y's  character."  This  plea  of  absence  of  intent  is 
made  in  the  letter  above  referred  to  as  appearing  with  Dr. 
Chauncey's,  over  the  signature  of  B.,  and  purporting  to  be 
by  the  author  of  the  B.  W.  letter :  and  it  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate an  idea  of  intention  which  is  not  entirely  conventional  in 
the  present  day.  To  stigmatize  a  man  as  a  suppresser  of 
truth,  and  as  an  over  zealous,  rude,  malevolent,  impertinent 
and  troublesome  fellow,  and  yet  say  there  was  no  design  to 
injure  his  character,  is  to  use  words  in  what,  if  the  writer  had 
lived  a  century  or  so  later,  he  might  perhaps  have  realized  to 
be  a  Pickwickian  sense. 

But  with  regard  to  the  validity  of  Dr.  Chauncey's  excuse  for 
his  actual  use  of  Mr.  Wentworth's  initials,  the  reader,  as 
another  member  of  the  great  impartial  public,  will  of  course 
decide  for  himself  on  his  own  judgment  whether  to  believe  him 
fully  in  this  particular  instance,  or  to  accept  his  statement 
with  some  allowances.  As  a  biographer,  however,  I  am  bound 
to  say  that  Mr.  Seabury  seems  neither  to  have  believed  him, 
nor  to  have  made  any  allowances  for  him. 

In  his  reply,  printed  in  Mr.  Gaine's  New  York  Gazette  of 
February  20,  1769,  Mr.  Seabury  refers  to  this  point;  but  be- 
fore he  does  so,  he  denies  that  Dr.  Chauncey's  plea  is  an 
answer  to  him,  and  avers  that  he  avoids  the  real  issue  by 
defending  himself  from  a  charge  not  made  against  him. 

''  And  is  it  then  true.  Doctor,  that  you  did  write  the  direc- 
tion, and  put  the  signature  to  the  B.  W.  letter?  This  is  con- 
fessing more  than  I  charged  you  with.  From  some  particular 
circumstances,  I  suspected  fraud  and  forgery  in  the  case;  but 
I  never  charged  you  with  either:  Read  over  carefully  the 
Papers  that  I  wrote,  and  you  will  not  find  such  a  charge 
brought  against  you.  The  charge  against  you  is  contained  in 
the  last  paragraph,  and  is  that  you  had  been  at  the  pains  of 
sending  an  anonymous  —  I  may  add  false  and  scandalous  let- 


THE   B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  I03 

ter,  250  miles  from  Boston  to  New  York;  that  you  had  di- 
rected it  to  be  printed  in  a  common  newspaper,  that  it  might 
circulate  far  and  wide,  in  order  to  injure  my  character  —  a 
man  utterly  unknown  to  you,  who  never  did,  nor  intended  to 
do  you  any  injury.  This  is  the  charge  brought  against  you ;  — 
a  charge,  to  which  in  your  letter  you  make  no  manner  of 
reply,  but  fall  to  exculpating  yourself  from  an  accusation  that 
I  never  brought  against  you.  Is  this  fair,  Doctor?  —  In  my 
apprehension,  'tis  foul,  'tis  basely  foul ;  but  how  it  has  hap- 
pened I  know  not.  Did  you  not  intend  to  draw  the  attention 
of  your  readers,  from  the  merits  of  the  cause,  and  to  excite 
their  indignation  against  me,  for  having  accused  you  of  forgery 
upon  groundless  suspicion?  If  you  did  not,  produce  the  pas- 
sage in  which  you  are  charged  with  forgery;  I  challenge  you 
to  do  it.  ...  I  did  say,  that  it  remained  with  Doctor 
Chauncey  to  produce  his  author,  or  to  take  the  letter,  with  all 
its  fraud,  forgery,  villainy,  scandal,  falsehood  and  baseness, 
upon  himself.  This  you  call  effrontery;  your  humble  servant, 
Doctor  Modesty!  But  is  it  not  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind, that  when  a  scandalous  report  is  traced,  'till  it  comes  to 
a  person  who  cannot  ...  or  will  not  name  his  author, 
that  he  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  author,  and  becomes  ac- 
countable for  the  consequences  ?  .  .  .  Besides,  Doctor,  you 
put  the  signature  to  the  letter :  though  you  did  not  write  your 
name,  you  made  your  mark;  it  matters  not  who  draws  the 
instrument,  the  signer  being  bound  to  defend  and  make  good 
the  contents. 

You  confess  that  you  wrote  the  direction,  and  signed  B.  W. 
to  the  letter.  The  immodest  paper,  it  seems,  was  "  put  naked 
into  your  hands,"  and  you  did  not  choose  to  send  the  shameful 
thing  a  journey  of  250  miles,  to  make  its  appearance  among 
strangers,  'till  it  was  properly  cloathed,  *'  that  it  might  appear 
as  OTHER  PRINTED  PAPERS  DO."     Pray,  Doctor,  did  you  never 


104  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

see  a  printed  paper  without  either  direction  or  signature  ?  Are 
there  none  such  printed  in  Boston?  Or  do  you  read  nothing 
—  except  the  Fathers  —  but  what  is  printed  at  Boston  ? 

Indulge  me,  Doctor,  in  one  supposition,  and  remember  it  is 
only  a  supposition ;  I  affirm  nothing  —  Suppose  that  you  was 
a  missionary  from  the  Scotch  Society  for  propagating  the 
Gospel;  and  there  was  a  gentleman  in  New  York  who  was  a 
member  of  the  same  Society;  and  that  this  gentleman  should 
put  a  naked  paper  in  my  hands,  importing  that  some  thirty  or 
more  years  ago.  Doctor  Ch — nc — y  "  very  decently  for  a 
clergyman "  preached  a  sermon,  in  which  he  attempted  to 
prove,  that  prevarication  or  lying  in  a  good  cause  where  the 
Glory  of  God  was  concerned,  was  allowable,  &c.  and  that  I 
should  suffix  to  it  the  initial  letters  of  the  name  of  a  late 
Governor  of  some  neighbouring  Province,  whom  I  am  also  to 
suppose  a  member  of  the  same  Society;  and  that  I  should  di- 
rect and  send  it  to  the  Printer  of  a  common  newspaper  in 
Boston;  and  that  the  Printer  should  introduce  it  with  in- 
forming the  Public,  that  he  received  a  letter  from  a  gentleman 
of  figure  in  New  York,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Scotch 
Society,  &:c.,  that  he  had  the  original  in  his  hands,  and  was 
ready  to  show  it  to  any  person  that  desired  satisfaction  on 
that  head.  And  suppose  you  should  apply  to  the  Printer,  and 
he  should  tell  you  that  the  letter  was  written  by  the  late 

Governor ;  but  upon  Governor  's  being  applied  to, 

he  should  declare  it  a  villainous  forgery.  And  then  upon  trac- 
ing the  letter,  you  should  find  that  it  came  from  me,  and  that 
I  should  refuse  to  name  my  author:  —  would  you  not  think 
that  I  was  accountable  for  all  the  fraud,  forgery,  villainy, 
scandal,  falsehood  and  baseness  in  it  ?  Let  conscience  answer ; 
and  conscience,  even  your  conscience.  Doctor,  will  determine  in 
my  favour.  Such  conduct  is,  beyond  all  dispute,  villainous 
and  base :  and  such  has  been  your  conduct  to  me. 

Remember,  Doctor,  the  above  is  all   supposition;  and  the 


THE   B.    W.    CONTTiOVERSY.  IO5 

particular  instance  of  preaching,  I  fixed  upon  possibly,  by  the 
same  kind  of  chance  that  directed  you  to  the  two  letters 
B.  W. —  But,  by  your  leave.  Sir,  I  must  examine  this  same 
B.  W.  chance  work. 

You  say  yoit  had  no  view  in  the  choice  of  the  letters  B.  W. 
hut  to  avoid  the  name  of  the  real  author  .  .  .  Consider, 
kind  reader,  that  twenty-six  letters  of  the  Alphabet  may  be  so 
differently  taken,  two  at  a  time,  that  there  are  many  hundred 
chances  against  Dr.  Chauncey,  that  chance  did  not  lead  him  to 
fix  upon  B.  W. —  The  celebrated  Mr.  Edwards  says,  that  the 
mind,  even  in  the  most  zvhimsical  choices,  is  governed  by 
motives.  But  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss,  Doctor,  to  conceive  what 
motive  could  induce  you  to  fix,  in  the  first  place  upon  B.  the 
second  letter  in  the  alphabet,  and  then  to  reprobate  twenty 
letters,  in  order  to  come  at  W.  unless  it  was  that  these  two 
letters  were  the  initials  of  the  name  of  Benning  Wentworth, 
Eqr.  .  .  . —  it  is  all,  it  seems,  a  mistake  of  mine.  There 
were  no  circumstances  to  lead  any  one  to  suppose  that  B.  W. 
were  intended  for  the  initials  of  Mr.  Wentworth's  name,  even 
after  the  letter  writer  had  declared  himself  a  member  of  the 
Society,  and  no  other  name  on  the  Society's  list  of  members 
had  B.  W.  for  its  initials:  even  after  Messrs.  Parker,  and 
Smith,  had  declared  that  Mr.  Wentworth  was  the  author, — 
though  I  must  do  Mr.  Smith  the  justice  to  say,  that  he,  within 
ten  minutes,  denied  that  he  had  ever  said  so.  Nay,  to  you  it  is 
quite  strange,  that  I,  or  any  one  else,  should  —  be  so  stupid  as 
to  —  imagine  that  the  real  author  of  the  paper  signed  B.  W. 
was  intended  to  be  marked  out  by  these  letters;  altho'  Mr. 
Parker  had  declared,  and  in  print  too,  that  he,  the  Printer, 
had  received  the  said  paper,  which  he  called  a  letter  from  a 
gentleman  of  figure  —  and  a  queer  figure  he  makes  —  in  Bos- 
ton ;  a  member  of  the  Society,  &c.,  and  that  he,  the  Printer,  had 
the  original  in  his  hands,  ready  to  be  shown  to  any  person 
who  was  desirous  of  satisfaction  on  that  head ;  when  behold 


I06  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

this  same  original  letter,  proves  to  be  originally  a  paper  put 
naked  into  your  hands,  and  by  you  ornamented  with  a  direc- 
tion at  the  top  —  To  James  Parker  —  with  the  superlatively 
honourable  distinction  of  Printer  of  the  American  Whig  in 
capitals;  and  guarded  in  the  rear,  by  the  initials  of  the  name 
of  the  late  Governor  Wentworth. 

But  how  could  yoii  design  B.  W.  for  Benning  Wentworth, 
when  yoii  did  not  know  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Society 
for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel f  —  And  have  you,  Doctor, 
with  the  critical  eye  of  censure,  been  so  many  years  examin- 
ing the  Society's  Abstracts,  in  which  a  list  of  their  members 
is  annually  published,  and  never  seen  Mr.  Wentworth's  name? 
Never  heard  him  mentioned  as  a  member?  'Tis  Strange  1 
'Tis  Wondrous  strange !  especially  seeing  that  he  hath  been  so 
remarkably  active  and  disinterested  in  promoting  the  cause  of 
true  religion,  and  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America. 

Let  me  now,  Doctor,  in  a  few  words,  state  the  matter  be- 
tween us. —  You  confess  that  you  wrote  the  direction  and  sig- 
nature to  this  same  B.  W.  paper ;  and  that  you  sent  it  to  New 
York,  and  had  it  printed.  In  that  paper,  I  am  as  particularly 
pointed  out,  as  tho'  a  letter  of  my  name  had  not  been  omitted ; 
and  am  described  as  a  "  troublesome  person,"  of  a  "  malevolent 
spirit," —  and  as  having  "  impertinently  disturbed  the  quiet 
of  this  Country  for  some  time  past,"  &c.  I  have  traced  the 
scandalous  performance,  till  it  comes  to  you;  you  refuse  to 
name  your  author ;  and  ask,  What  imaginable  right  I  have  to 
demand  the  knowledge  of  the  author  of  that  paper;  or  to 
suspend  the  honour  of  your  character  upon  a  compliance  with 
that  demand f  ...  To  demand  this,  you  say,  is  "  to  invert 
the  order  of  Reason  and  Nature."  Yours,  Doctor,  must  be  a 
very  queer  Reason,  and  a  very  perverse  Nature,  to  suppose 
that  an  injured,  abused  person,  has  no  right  to  call  upon  the 
man  who  has  done  him  the  injury ;  but  that  he  ought,  on  the 


THE   B.    W.    CONTROVERSY,  IO7 

contrary,  to  make  him  open  and  public  satisfaction,  for  being 
openly  and  publicly  abused  by  him." 

I  am  not  aware  that  Dr.  Chauncey  replied  to  the  letter 
from  which  these  extracts  have  been  made. 

So  far  as  appears  from  the  letter,  Mr.  Seabury  had  at  the 
time  of  its  date  come  to  no  certain  conclusion  as  to  the  name 
of  the  B.  W.  writer,  except  that  it  was  not  Benning  Went- 
worth.  Efforts,  however,  as  already  observed,  were  made  to 
solve  this  mystery  by  procuring  from  each  of  the  Boston 
members  an  answer  to  the  question  whether  the  letter  had 
been  written  by  him.  But  I  find  nothing  to  indicate  that  Mr. 
Seabury  was  aware  of  the  answers  respectively  returned  to 
the  question  when  he  wrote  his  last  letter  to  Dr.  Chauncey. 
A  letter  giving  information  on  the  subject  was  addressed  to 
him  by  his  Boston  correspondent,  Mr.  Brown;  but  this  was 
dated  March  20,  1769,  and  was  not  received  till  April  ist. 
It  is  interesting  to  observe,  in  passing,  that  this  letter,  di- 
rected "  To  the  Rev^  Samuel  Seabury  In  Westchester,"  is 
marked  with  the  written  words  "  Paid  3,  8,"  and  is  stamped 
with  the  words  "  Boston  u^r)," —  being  the  earliest  instance 
of  the  stamp  mark  that  I  have  m.et  with  in  mailed  letters. 
On  the  under  side  of  this  letter  as  folded  is  the  stamp  (J^, 
probably  indicating  the  date  of  arrival  in  New  York;  and 
above  that,  in  Mr.  Seabury's  handwriting,  "  N.  B.  paid  2d 
for  this  Reed  Ap.  i."  It  will  appear  presently  that  Mr. 
Seabury  was  writing  on  or  about  Feb.  13,  to  the  Boston  mem- 
bers aforesaid;  but  nothing  shows  that  he  had  received 
answers  before  the  date  of  his  letter  to  Dr.  Chauncey;  and, 
judging  from  the  length  of  time  which  elapsed  before  he 
received  Mr.  Browm's  letter,  that  is  eleven  or  twelve  days, 
he  could  hardly  have  received  answers  from  Boston  to  his 
letter  of  February  13th,  before  he  wrote  his  letter  to  Dr. 
Chauncey,  which  is  dated  February  17th,  and  appears  in 
print   February  20th.     The  point  is  perhaps   curious   rather 


I08  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

than  important,  since  his  own  knowledge  as  to  this,  if  he 
had  any,  would  not  make  Dr.  Chauncey  less  responsible 
for  his  agency  in  the  matter;  but  the  tone  of  his  letter  to 
Dr.  Chauncey  plainly  indicates  his  want  of  knowledge  of  the 
real  author ;  which  is  made  the  more  probable  by  the  considera- 
tion that  if  he  had  then  had  the  information  received  later 
from  Mr.  Brown,  he  would  have  been  extremely  likely  to 
write  to  some  one  else. 

Mr.  Brown  says,  March  20th,  "  I  don't  know  but  the  paper 
I  have  mentioned,  has  been,  or  will  be  transmitted  to  you: 
however  it  may  possibly  miscarry,  therefore  think  it  not  amiss 
to  acquaint  you  with  its  contents,  of  which  the  following  is 
an  exact  copy  that  I  took  before  I  divested  myself  of  the 
original. 

''  Whereas  a  letter  dated  Boston  August  ye  5th  1768,  and 
signed  B.  W.  was  printed  in  Mr.  Parker's  New  York  Gazette 
or  Weekly  Post  Boy  the  29th  of  the  said  month  of  August 
and  since  in  other  Papers,  containing  besides  other  matters 
many  injurious  reflections  on  the  Reverend  Mr.  S-b-r-y,  &c. ; 
in  which  letter  the  writer  affirms  himself  to  be  a  member  of 
the  Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts ; 
and  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  said  letter  was  delivered  by 
a  member  of  the  said  Society,  at  Boston,  to  the  gentleman 
who  is  said  to  have  transmitted  the  same  to  New  York  to  be 
published  there.  We  whose  names  are  hereunto  subscribed 
being  members  of  the  said  Society  residing  at  Boston  do  de- 
clare (each  speaking  for  himself  and  his  own  acts  only)  that 
he  did  not  write,  dictate,  publish  or  deliver  to  be  published 
the  said  letter,  nor  were  any  wise  concerned  in  or  privy  to 
the  same,  nor  had  any  knowledge  of  the  said  letter  until  after 
it  was  printed  in  the  New  York  Gazette  as  aforesaid. 
Witness  our  hands  at  Boston  the  30th  day  of  January  1769. 
Fra.  Bernard  Jno.  Apthorp 

Jas.  Apthorp 
Jos^  Harrison.  H.Hall." 


THE   B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  IO9 

The  statement  with  which  Mr.  Brown  prefaces  this  copy, 
and  explains  how  the  original  came  to  be  in  his  hands,  ac- 
counts for  the  blank  space  among  the  signatures,  and  is  other- 
wise interesting. 

"  Not  many  days  after  your  first  letter  appeared  in  the 
Boston  Gazette,  a  gentleman  put  a  paper  into  my  hand,  and 
desired  me  to  present  it  to  the  Hon^^^  John  Temple,  Esqr., 
that  he  might  sign  it.  Upon  looking  at  it  I  found  that  all  the 
members  of  the  Society  residing  in  Boston  had  signed  it,  save 
the  gent,  above  named.  I  must  say  at  first  thought  he  was 
the  last  person  I  should  have  suspected  of  having  any  concern 
in  this  matter:  but  some  people  surmised,  that  from  his  con- 
nection by  marriage,  the  probability  was  greater  against  him 
than  either  of  the  others.  I  had  heard  of  this  suspicion,  yet 
could  not  bring  myself  to  think  he  would  have  refused  to 
sign  with  the  rest.  I  readily  waited  upon  him  the  same  day 
that  the  paper  was  given  me,  and  presented  it  to  him:  but 
how  great  was  my  astonishment  and  surprise  at  his  looks  and 
behaviour  after  perusing  it.  It  would  be  needless  for  me  to 
recapitulate  what  passed  between  us :  therefore  only  add,  that 
I  treated  him  with  as  much  complaisance  as  I  could:  he  re- 
turned me  the  paper  and  declared  he  would  not  sign  it,  nor 
have  any  concern  with  it,  and  I  left  him  without  receiving 
any  reasons  from  him  for  his  refusing  to  sign  it." 

With  one  more  letter,  a  copy  of  which  in  Mr.  Seabury's 
handwriting  has  been  preserved  among  his  papers,  I  may 
close  an  account  which  has  covered  more  pages  than  I  vainly 
supposed  I  could  compress  it  into  when  I  began,  but  which 
I  have  been  unwilling  to  leave  incomplete,  nor  without  en- 
abling the  reader  to  form  some  conclusion  as  to  the  real 
authorship  of  the  B.  W.  letter  —  as  to  which  I  presume  he 
can  have  no  doubt  in  view  of  the  evidence  presented. 


no  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

*'  W  Chester  March  28.  1769 
Sir, 

On  the  13th  Feby,  I  took  the  Hbcrty  of  addressing  a  letter 
to  you,  requesting  that  you  would  inform  me,  whether  you 
wrote  the  letter  signed  B.  W.  and  published  in  New  York  by 
Doer.  Chauncey's  order.  That  gentleman's  affirming  the 
above  mentioned  letter  to  have  been  written  by  a  member 
of  the  Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign 
parts,  and  an  inhabitant  of  Boston,  made  it  necessary  for 
me  to  apply  to  the  members  in  Boston,  and  to  you  among 
the  rest.  The  other  gentlemen  to  whom  I  wrote  on  that  oc- 
casion have  honoured  me  with  their  answers,  in  which  they 
deny  that  they  had  any  knowledge  of  the  letter  signed  B.  W. 
till  it  appeared  in  print.  I  did  not  know  that  Mr.  Harrison 
resided  in  Boston,  and  therefore  did  not  write  to  him,  but  I 
have  been  informed  that  he  has  signed  a  declaration  to  the 
same  purpose. 

As  I  know  of  no  other  member  in  Boston,  but  yourself 
who  has  not  readily  testified  his  ignorance  of  the  B.  W.  let- 
ter, till  it  appeared  publicly,  I  am  under  the  necessity  of 
again  applying  myself  to  you,  desiring  that  you  would  inform 
me  as  soon  as  conveniently  you  can  whether  you  did  write 
the  letter  signed  B.  W.  which  was  printed  in  Parker's  New 
York  Gazette.  When  you  consider  the  many  arts  that  have 
been  used  to  ruin  the  credit  of  the  Society's  Missionaries  in 
general,  and  the  unprovoked  undeserved  treatment  which  I 
in  particular  met  with  in  the  letter  signed  B.  W.  you  will 
certainly  think  me  right,  in  using  all  lawful  and  reasonable 
means  to  discover  the  author  of  that  iniquitous  attack  upon 
my  character. 

Your  answer  will  particularly  oblige 
Your  very  humbl   Serv't 

S.  Seabury. 
To  John  Temple  Esqr  Boston/^ 


THE    B.    W.    CONTROVERSY.  HI 

If  any  answer  was  received  to  this,  extremely  polite  but, 
under  the  circumstances,  perhaps  not  entirely  agreeable,  epistle, 
I  have  never  heard  of  it. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
THE  COLONIAL  EPISCOPATE. 

IN  his  letter  to  Dr.  Stiles,  given  in  a  previous  chapter, 
Mr.  Seabury  alludes  to  the  *'  Manifest  unaccountable 
want  of  Candor  in  the  opposers  of  the  American  Episco- 
pate;" and  certainly  the  allusion  seems  not  to  have  been 
groundless.  The  minds  of  men  were  much  stirred  about  this 
question  of  a  Colonia.1  Episcopate.  The  Clergy,  particularly 
those  of  Connecticut,  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  were  very 
earnest  in  their  pursuit  of  the  project.  They  contended  very 
openly  and  honestly  for  the  consecration  of  Bishops  for 
America,  in  the  exercise  of  all  the  influence  they  had  both  at 
home  and  abroad;  and  their  contention  was  based  upon  the 
simple  plea  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Church.  Their  only  additional  plea  appears  to  have  been  that 
the  preservation  of  the  Church  was  essential  to  the  preservation 
of  the  existing  order  of  civil  government  in  the  Colonies ; 
but  this  was  subsidiary  to  the  main  point,  which  was  that  the 
Church  would  soon  inevitably  become  extinct,  and  the  work 
already  done  come  to  nought,  without  resident  Bishops.  And 
in  all  their  movement  toward  the  accomplishment  of  this  end, 
which  dated  almost  from  the  first  planting  of  the  Church 
here,  they  seem  to  have  clearly  and  carefully  discriminated 
between  the  English  and  the  Colonial  situation,  and  to  have 
used  their  best  endeavour  to  make  it  perfectly  plain  that  they 
sought   Bishops  for  purely  spiritual  purposes,   and   had  no 

112 


THE   COLONIAL   EPISCOPATE.  II3 

thought  of  introducing  with  them  any  of  those  temporal  char- 
acteristics of  Episcopal  rule  to  which  exception  had  been  so 
strongly  taken. 

As  one  of  the  evidences  of  the  ground  taken  by  the  Church 
Clergy,  may  be  cited  certain  proposals  signed  by  Dr.  Cutler 
and  others,  and  forwarded  to  the  Bishop  of  London  by  the 
Reverend  Dr.  Johnson  of  Connecticut  in  1750.  This  paper, 
proceeding  upon  the  presumption  that  the  chief  obstruction 
to  the  settling  of  Bishops  in  America  has  arisen  from  misap- 
prehension, gives  a  statement  of  the  Objections  made  to  the 
project,  and  endeavours  to  obviate  them  by  explanation  of  its 
true  purposes.     The  objections  to  which  they  refer  are, 

1.  With  respect  to  the  coercive  power  such  Bishops  may  exer- 
cise over  the  people  in  causes  ecclesiastical. 

2.  With  respect  to  the  interest  or  authority  of  the  Governors 
there. 

3.  With  respect  to  the  burthen  that  may  be  brought  upon  the 
people,  of  supporting  and  maintaining  Bishops  there. 

4.  With  respect  to  such  of  the  Colonies  where  the  govern- 
ment is  in  the  hands  of  the  Independents,  or  other  dissenters, 
whose  principles  are  inconsistent  with  Episcopal  government; 
and,  they  continue: 

''  As  these  objections  are  all  founded  upon  a  misapprehension 
of  the  case,  it  may  be  proper  to  have  it  understood, 
1st.  That  no  coercive  power  is  desired  over  the  laity  in  any 
case ;  but  only  a  power  to  regulate  the  behaviour  of  the  Clergy 
who  are  in  Episcopal  Orders,  and  to  correct  and  punish  them 
according  to  the  law  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  case  of 
misbehaviour  or  neglect  of  duty ;  with  such  power  as  the  Com- 
missaries abroad  have  exercised. 

2dly.  That  nothing  is  desired  for  such  Bishops  that  may  in 
the  least  interfere  with  the  dignity,  or  authority,  or  interest 
of  Governor,  or  any  other  officer  of  State.  Probate  of  Wills, 
licence  for  Marriage,  &c.,  to  be  left  in  the  hands  where  they 


114  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

are,  and  no  share  of  the  temporal  government  is  desired  for 
Bishops. 

3dly.  The  maintenance  of  such  Bishops  not  to  be  at  the  charge 
of  the  Colonies. 

4thly.  No  Bishops  are  intended  to  be  settled  in  places  where 
the  government  is  in  the  hands  of  Dissenters,  as  in  Nev^  Eng- 
land, &c.,  but  authority  to  be  given  only  to  ordain  Clergy  for 
such  Church  of  England  Congregations  as  are  among  them, 
and  to  inspect  into  the  manners  and  behaviour  of  the  same 
Clergy,  and  to  confirm  the  members  thereof."  ^ 

When  it  is  considered  that  to  the  faith  of  the  Churchman 
the  Church  of  Christ  is  by  Divine  institution  an  outward  and 
visible  Society,  endowed  with  appointed  means  of  Grace  en- 
trusted by  the  same  appointment  to  a  Ministry  derived  from 
the  Apostles,  through  the  Bishops  who  have  succeeded  into 
their  office;  and  that  therefore  the  want  of  Bishops  not  only 
involved  incompleteness  of  organization,  but  also  endangered 
<^the  perpetuity  of  spiritual  life,  it  would  seem  both  that  the 
urgency  of  the  Colonial  Churchmen  for  Bishops  was  simply 
their  bounden  duty,  and  that  the  paper  just  cited  is  an  ad- 
mirable instance  of  candor  and  discretion  exercised  in  the  dis- 
charge of  that  duty.  And  of  the  same  tone,  and  characterized 
by  the  same  candor  and  discretion,  so  far  as  I  have  observed, 
were  all  the  efforts  made  for  the  obtaining  of  the  Episcopate, 
whether  evidenced  by  the  writings  of  the  Colonial  Churchmen, 
or  by  those  of  their  friends  and  sympathizers  in  England  — 
with  possibly  a  casual  exception  to  be  mentioned  later.  Even 
the  biographer  of  William  Livingston  in  referring  to  the  fa- 
mous ''  Appeal  to  the  Public  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land," put  forth  by  Dr.  Chandler  in  1767,  as  a  sort  of  sum- 
ming up  and  representation  of  the  case  for  an  American 
Episcopacy,  has  nothing  worse  to  say  of  it  than  that  it  is 

I.  Life  of  Samuel  Johnson,  D.  D.,  First  President  of  King's  College, 
by  Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler,  D.  D.,  169-171. 


THE   COLONIAL   EPISCOPATE.  II5 

*'  a  heavy  but  mild  and  decorous  production ;"  and  that  it  "  is 
a  laboured  argument,  not  only  in  favour  of  the  particular 
scheme  in  question,  but  of  the  Episcopalian  system  generally ;" 
and  he  adds  that  "  the  work  also  contains  several  sections  go- 
ing to  show  that  the  episcopate  prayed  for  was  purely  re- 
ligious, and  could  have  no  improper  connection  with  the  civil 
power."  ^ 

That  a  plea  so  manifestly  reasonable  in  itself,  and  presented 
with  uniform  dignity  and  good  temper,  should  have  failed  to 
disarm  prejudice  in  the  Colonies,  and  to  secure  favourable 
reception  in  England,  argues  the  existence  of  some  influence 
other  than  its  own  demerit.  That  the  apprehension  of  its  suc- 
cess should  have  been  one  of  the  causes  which  produced  the 
Revolution  is,  when  one  views  it  by  itself,  apparently  in- 
credible. It  seems  absurd  that  with  all  the  sincere  apprecia- 
tion in  the  Colonies  of  the  value  of  personal  freedom  in  gen- 
eral, and  with  the  so  great  profession  of  regard  above  all  for 
religious  liberty  in  particular,  the  right  of  the  Churchmen  to 
have  their  ecclesiastical  system  completed  in  all  its  essentials 
should  be  not  only  denied,  but  denied  with  resentful  bitterness ; 
while  the  same  kind  of  right  was  allowed  and  deemed  to  be 
just  in  the  case  of  other  religious  bodies  in  the  Country. 
Still  more  absurd  does  it  seem  that  a  matter,  properly  speak- 
ing of  simply  religious  import,  should  have  the  slightest  po- 
litical significance;  that  those  who  had  the  power  to  impart 
the  desired  gift  should  have  been  against  their  will  precluded 
from  the  exercise  of  that  power  by  Civil  Rulers  who  had  of 
right  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it;  and  that  those  Rulers, 
strong  enough  in  their  policy  of  repression  at  home,  should 
be  so  cowardly  weak  abroad  as  to  refuse  justice  to  some  for 
fear  of  giving  offence  to  others.  Yet  this  is  but  a  suggestion 
of  the  incongruities  involved  in  the  situation. 

2.  Memoir  of  William  Livingston  by  Theodore  Sedgwick,  Jun.,  p.  131. 


Il6  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

The  fact  is  that  the  question  of  the  American  Episcopate 
was  compHcated  with  considerations  which  in  the  mind  of  the 
Churchmen  were  entirely  foreign  to  it,  and  which  in  the  mind 
of  the  objectors  were  the  only  considerations  thought  worthy 
of  attention.  Claims  which  were  based  upon  a  purely 
spiritual  conception  of  the  Episcopate  were  either  honestly 
misunderstood,  or  wilfully  perverted  by  designing  men  with 
the  ulterior  object  of  inflaming  the  minds  of  the  people  against 
the  Mother  Country.  The  general  ground  of  opposition  to 
the  proposed  Episcopate  was  that  it  would  be  an  introduction 
into  America  of  a  part  of  the  system  of  English  Government 
from  which  the  Colonists  had  heretofore  been  free,  but  which 
was  associated  in  their  traditions  with  memories  of  oppression 
from  which  their  ancestors  had  suffered  in  England,  and  to 
escape  from  which  they  had  emigrated.  The  Bishop  was  con- 
ceived of  as  a  State  official,  empowered  under  pretence  of 
spiritual  jurisdiction  to  meddle  with  their  customs  of  worship, 
and  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  their  religious  convictions ;  as  con- 
nected with  a  system  of  legal  administrations  which  touched 
not  only  spiritual  but  also  temporal  rights ;  and  as  possessing 
so  exalted  a  station  as  to  require  costly  and  luxurious  pro- 
vision for  its  maintenance,  the  expense  of  which  was  to  be 
met  by  commensurate  and  general  taxation.  It  was  indeed 
often  and  patiently  explained  to  those  who  entertained  this 
conception  that  it  was  wholly  inapplicable  to  such  an  Episco- 
pate as  was  desired;  but  whether  not  convinced,  or  convinced 
against  their  will,  they  still  persisted  in  retaining  it. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  how  such  objections  would  take 
their  place  among  the  other  contentions  which  were  at  the 
same  time  being  made  against  what  were  claimed  to  be  un- 
just impositions  upon  the  Colonists  on  the  part  of  the  Mother 
Country,  and  that  assaults  upon  the  Episcopacy  would  come 
to  be  pressed  not  so  much  on  religious  as  on  practical  grounds, 
and  from  political  scruples.     In  short  the  Colonial  Episcopate 


THE   COLONIAL   EPISCOrATE.  II7 

became  conspicuous  among  the  grievances  real  or  imaginary, 
existing  or  anticipated  which  formed  the  pohtical  capital  of 
the  opposition  party  in  the  Colonies;  and  war  was  waged 
upon  it  not  only  by  controversial  attacks  in  this  Country,  but 
also  by  influence  brought  to  bear  against  it  in  England  which 
effectually  prevented  the  Civil  sanction  which  its  friends  there 
vainly  sought  to  procure  for  it. 

Under  these  circumstances  too,  it  was  only  to  be  expected 
that  a  special  animosity  should  be  manifested  and  cultivated 
against  the  English  Society  for  propagating  the  Gospel  and 
the  Missionaries  who  without  its  aid  could  not  have  sustained 
the  work  of  the  Church  in  the  Colonies.  It  was  plain  that 
the  Society  had  constantly  maintained  the  desirability  of  set- 
tling Bishops  in  America,  and  hence  those  who  conceived  of 
that  project  as  one  of  the  many  links  of  the  chain  of  injury 
and  oppression  being  forged  for  the  Colonists  found  in  the 
Society  a  ready  object  of  attack.  Dr.  Mayhew/"^  largely  shar- 
ing the  disaffection  which  the  temporal  policy  of  England 
was  then  fast  producing  in  the  Colonies,  and  the  belief  that 
the  Church  was  identified  with  the  King  and  Parliament  in 
their  obnoxious  policy,  published  in  1763  an  attack  proceeding 
upon  this  line,  of  which  the  Society  formed  the  primary  ob- 
ject. He  was  answered  by  Mr.  Apthorp  one  of  the  Society's 
Missionaries,  and  also  by  Archbishop  Seeker  in  a  pamphlet, 
whose  fairness  of  reasoning  and  charity  of  spirit  even  Mayhew 
himself  commended.* 

Later  again,  in  1767,  one  of  the  annual  preachers  before  the 
Society,  Dr.  Ewer,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  became  the  object  of 

3.  Jonathan  Mayhew,  D.  D.,  b.  1720,  Minister  of  West  Church,  Bos- 
ton, 1747  to  1766,  the  date  of  his  death.  "An  associate  of  Otis  and 
other  patriots  in  resisting  arbitrary  claims  of  Great  Britain.  Blake's 
Biographical  Dictionary. 

4.  Anderson's  History  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Colonies, 
III,  412-416. 


II8  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  censure  of  Dr.  Charles  Chauncey,  Pastor  of  First  Church 
in  Boston,  and  was  virulently  assailed  by  William  Livingston 
in  a  personal  letter.  Chauncey  also  about  the  same  time  re- 
plied to  Chandler's  Appeal ;  in  response  to  which  appeared  the 
Appeal  Defended;  Chauncey's  reply  to  which  produced  the 
Appeal  further  Defended.  It  is  not  necessary  particularly 
to  describe  this  controversy,  but  it  is  worth  noticing  that  the 
arguments  of  Dr.  Chauncey  as  well  as  of  others  seem  to  be 
in  accordance  with  the  general  policy  of  the  opposition  in  re- 
spect of  its  censure  upon  things  which  the  advocates  of  the 
American  Episcopate  uniformly  claimed  to  have  no  connec- 

/  tion  with  it.  "  The  inexpediency  of  any  establishment  of  re- 
ligion by  law,"  says  Mr.  Sedgwick,  referring  especially  to 
Dr.  Chauncey's  controversies,  "  the  grounds  for  apprehension 
lest  the  vast  and  oppressive  system  of  tithes,  spiritual  courts, 
and  the  canon  law,  should  accompany  or  follow  the  Colonial 
prelates,  furnished  ready  and  popular  topics  of  reply  as  well 
to  Ewer  as  to  Chandler.  At  the  same  time  it  was  freely  ad- 
mitted by  the  dissenters,  that  no  objection  could  be  had  to 
the  introduction  of  bishops  unattended  by  any  temporal  power 
or  dignity.  But  they  destroyed  the  effect  of  that  admission, 
by  maintaining  that  it  could  not  be  safe  to  trust  the  encroach- 
ing disposition  of  a  church  which  at  home  had  distinguished 

\    itself  for  intolerance  and  oppression."  ^ 

But  the  true  spirit  of  the  opposition,  and  its  definite  pur- 
pose cannot  be  better  shown  than  in  the  language  of  the 
Presbyterian  William  Livingston,  sometime  Governor  of  New 
Jersey,  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  brilliant  of  all  the  remark- 
able men  who  in  that  generation  promoted  the  resistance  of 
the  Colonies.  In  a  letter  dated  New  York,  26th  March, 
1768,  to  Dr.  Samuel  Cooper  of  Boston,  Mr.  Livingston 
says: 

5.  Sedgwick's  Memoir  of  William  Livingston,  pp.  131-2. 


THE    COLONIAL    EPISCOPATE.  II9 

"  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  Dr.  Chaiincey  has  undertaken  an 
answer  to  Dr.  Chandler's  Appeal.  As  the  latter  began  already 
to  construe  our  silence  on  the  subject  into  an  acquiescence  in 
his  project,  it  is  high  time  the  appeal  was  answered.  But 
though  your  venerable  brother  may  strip  our  Episcopalian 
champion  of  his  triumphal  trappings,  I  think  it  cannot  have 
the  same  salutary  effect  towards  defeating  the  scheme  at  home 
as  a  course  of  weekly  papers  inserted  in  the  public  prints. 
These  are  almost  universally  read,  and  from  the  greater  lati- 
tude one  may  there  give  himself,  will  prove  more  effectual  in 
alarming  the  Colonies.  For  I  take  it  that  clamour  is  at  pres- 
ent our  best  policy,  and  that  if  the  Country  can  be  animated 
against  it,  our  superiors  at  home  will  not  easily  be  induced 
to  grant  so  arrogant  a  claim,  at  the  expense  of  the  public 
tranquility.  With  this  view  a  few  of  your  friends  here  have 
lately  begun  a  paper  under  the  name  of  the  American  Whig, 
which  they  purpose  to  carry  on  till  it  has  .  .  .  universal 
alarm.  A  number  of  gentlemen  will  shortly  open  the  ball  in 
Philadelphia.  I  should  be  glad  the  same  measure  was  pur- 
sued in  Boston.  .  .  .  Without  some  such  opposition,  I 
am  apprehensive  the  ministry  may  be  prevailed  upon  to  gratify 
the  lawn  sleeves  by  way  of  recompense  for  so  often  voting 
against  their  consciences  for  the  court. 

As  this  Country  is  good  enough  for  me,  and  I  have  no  no- 
tion of  removing  to  Scotland,  whence  my  ancestors  were 
banished  by  this  set  of  men,  I  cannot  without  terror  reflect 
on  a  bishop's  setting  his  foot  on  this  continent.  Pray,  my 
dear  sir,  bestir  yourself  at  this  critical  juncture,  and  help 
us  to  ward  off  this  ecclesiastical  stamp-act,  which,  if  submitted 
to,  will  at  length  grind  us  to  powder. 

I  beg  your  acceptance  of  the  enclosed  (the  letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  Llandaff),  which  I  wrote  out  of  real  affection  for 
the  New  England  Colonies,  and  a  sincere  regard  for  truth. 
Dr.   Chauncey   had,   'tis   true,   so   fully   refuted   the   bishop's 


120  MEMOIR    OF    CISITOP    SEADURY. 

calumnies  that  anything  further  might  well  have  been  dis- 
pensed with.  But  I  thought  he  had  treated  that  haughty 
prelate  rather  too  tenderly,  and  that  he  deserved  a  little 
severer  correction.     .     .     . 

I  must,  dear  sir,  repeat  my  earnest  solicitations  that  you 
exert  yourself  in  this  interesting  cause.  We  are  debtors  to 
our  Country  —  debtors  to  posterity  —  but,  above  all,  debtors 
to  Him  who  will  not  suffer  a  competitor  in  the  supremacy  of 
the  church.  .  .  . 
I  am,  dear  sir, 

your  most  affectionate  friend,  and  humble  serv't. 

WiL.  Livingston."  • 

The  omissions  denoted  by  asterisks  are  those  of  Mr.  Living- 
ston's biographer;  otherwise  the  letter  is  here  presented  in 
full  as  printed.  It  is  a  very  noteworthy  epistle  in  several  re- 
spects, but  particularly  as  showing  Mr.  Livingston's  connec- 
tion with  the  American  Whig,  and  as  revealing  the  position 
which  the  Colonial  Episcopate  occupied  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  singly  and  by  association  were  working  to  the  end  of 
promoting  by  every  means  in  their  power  the  disaffection  of 
the  Colonists.  It  would  seem  indeed  that  hostility  to  the 
Episcopal  plan  was  the  chief  motive  for  bringing  into  being 
the  American  Whig,  though  the  complaints  of  the  paper  were 
not  confined  to  that  grievance.  The  policy  to  be  acted  upon 
too,  in  the  promotion  of  disaffection  is  here  most  ingenuously 
unfolded  by  Mr.  Livingston ;  the  end  proposed  being  to  alarm 
the  Colonies,  the  means  to  that  end  clamour,  whereby  the 
Country  being  animated  against  the  plan,  the  superiors  at 
home,  that  is  the  Ministry,  may  be  persuaded  that  concurrence 
in  it  would  be  at  the  expense  of  the  public  tranquility.  And 
the  policy  thus  outlined  is  that   which   in   fact  was   so  con- 

6.  Sedgwick's   Memoir  of  William   Livingston,   pp.    136,   138. 


THE    COLONIAL    EPISCOPATE.  121 

sistently  and  efficaciously  pursued  as  to  be  entirely  successful. 

In  the  American  Whig  No.  XLII,  published  in  "  the  New 
York  Gazette  or  the  Weekly  Post-Boy  "  of  December  26,  1768, 
we  have  further  evidence  of  the  pursuit  of  that  policy;  and 
also,  by  the  way,  of  that  "  Manifest  want  of  Candor "  to 
which  Mr.  Seabury  calls  the  attention  of  Dr.  Stiles;  though 
perhaps,  in  view  of  Mr.  Livingston's  frankness,  we  can  hardly 
now  consider  it  "  unaccountable."  A  letter  is  contributed  to 
that  paper,  signed  "  Liberius,"  which  covertly,  and  under  the 
guise  of  one  writing  from  within  the  Church  and  earnestly 
solicitous  for  its  most  ample  Gospel-privileges,  seeks  to  throw 
suspicion  on  the  motives  of  the  advocates  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  Bishops.  That  the  letter  is  from  the  pen  of  Mr. 
Livingston  himself  appears  to  me  probable  from  the  style 
in  which  it  is  written,  and  from  his  connection  with  the  paper ; 
and  also  from  its  keenness  of  irony,  and  malicious  abundance 
of  innuendo,  of  which  the  versatile  pen  of  Mr.  Livingston, 
when  he  might  see  fit  to  give  himself  that  greater  latitude  al- 
lozved  by  the  public  prints,  would  be  fully  capable.  But  by 
whomsoever  it  was  written  it  was  a  most  insidious  paper,  and 
well  calculated  to  promote  the  end  which  Mr.  Livingston  had 
in  view,  in  the  alarm  to  be  given  to  the  Colonies  —  which 
the  writer  proposed  further  to  extend  by  the  excitement  of 
distrust  in  the  minds  of  the  Churchmen  themselves.  The  let- 
ter is  too  long  to  quote  here,  but  its  purport  may  sufficiently 
for  our  purpose  appear  from  the  following  extract: 

".  .  .  .  A  real  friend  of  the  Nation  or  its  Colonies, 
ought  therefore  to  be  sensibly  alarmed  at  everything  which 
has  the  remotest  tendency  to  increase  the  jealousy,  or  weaken 
the  connexion  between  them. —  Pardon  me,  then,  my  brethren, 
if  it  should  appear  to  be  without  just  foundation  that  the  vigor- 
ous efforts  lately  made,  to  obtain  an  American  episcopate, 
have  excited  my  fears  and  prevailed  on  me  in  this  manner 
to  use  my  endeavours  to  awaken  the  attention  of  such  as  are 


r 


122  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

united  in  the  same  religious  interest  with  myself.  My  ap- 
prehensions on  this  occasion,  I  must  confess,  are  various ; 
not  being  fully  satisfied  as  to  the  true  cause  of  those  en- 
deavours, nor  the  end  really  aimed  at.  Altho'  I  must  profess 
the  sincerest  regard  for  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  and 
heartily  desire  to  see  it  blessed  with  all  its  most  ample  Gospel- 
privileges  ;  yet,  whether  the  late  attempts  to  procure  American 
Bishops,  take  their  rise  from  friends  to  the  Church,  or  secret 
enemies  both  to  Church  and  State,  appears  to  me  an  uncer- 
tainty. Whoever  considers  the  jealousy  of  the  nation  re- 
specting its  Colonies,  as  being  desirous  to  throw  off  their  de- 
pendence upon  the  Mother  Country;  and  the  mutual  jealousies 
between  the  nation  and  its  Colonies,  so  lately  excited  by  the 
Stamp-Act,  cannot  fail  of  being  alarmed,  lest  some  evil  de- 
signing men,  taking  the  advantage  of  the  credulity  of  some 
of  our  well  meaning  clergy,  have  stirred  up  their  v/ell  in- 
tended, but  ill  timed  zeal,  earnestly  to  solicit  the  obtaining 
Bishops  among  ourselves.  An  event,  which,  should  it  hap- 
pen, would  so  evidently  lessen  the  dependence,  and  weaken  the 
connection  of  these  colonies  with  the  crown.  It  is  said, 
there  are  more  than  a  million  of  subjects,  dispersed  through 
the  plantations,  professed  members  of  our  excellent  Church, 
who  are  all  connected  with  the  nation,  not  only  by  civil  ties, 
in  common  with  those  of  other  denominations ;  but  in  addition 
thereto  are  strongly  united  by  the  sacred  ties  of  religion, 
being  in  subjection  to,  and  dependent  upon  the  Bishops  in  the 
Mother  Country.  Of  this  the  able  statesmen  of  the  Nation, 
cannot  but  be  sensible ;  and  from  principles  of  state  policy 
they  must  oppose  the  design. —  In  what  light  then,  will  they 
view  those  strenuous  efforts  for  an  American  episcopate,  but 
as  a  secret  design,  cloak'd  with  the  specious  pretence  of  re- 
ligion, to  ripen  our  circumstances  for  revolt?  Nor  will  our 
warmest  protestations  of  loyalty  to  the  crown,  avail  to  pre- 
vent such  apprehensions  concerning  us,  while  the  thing  we 


THE    COLONIAL   EPISCOPATE.  I23 

are  aiming  at,  whether  it  be  our  intention  or  not,  really  has 
such  a  tendency. 

These  my  dear  countrymen  and  brethren,  were  my  appre- 
hensions till  the  late  "  Appeal  "  to  the  Public,  fell  into  my 
hands ;  on  the  reading  of  which,  I  was  greatly  surprised,  more 
especially  at  the  character  there  given  of  the  Bishop  sought 
after,  and  intended  for  us.  A  Bishop  that  should  have  power 
only  to  confirm, — to  ordain, —  and  to  govern  none  but  the 
clergy!  One  that  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  us  who 
are  in  lay-communion,  save  only  to  confirm !  How  different 
this  from  the  character  of  a  scripture  Bishop,  as  we  have  al- 
ways been  taught!  .  .  .  Are  there  none  but  our  clergy, 
that  stand  in  need  of  the  godly  discipline  of  the  Church? 
.  .  .  That  the  Bishop  intended  for  us,  should  be  such  a 
maimed  incomplete  creature,  was,  to  me,  really  surprising  and 
unaccountable,  till  by  a  more  attentive  view  of  the  whole  dis- 
course, I  was  alarmed  with  shrewd  marks  of  a  covered  de- 
sign in  the  scheme. —  The  reason  which  is  there  held  up  to 
public  view,  is  to  prevent  our  design  of  having  Bishops  from 
being  opposed  by  our  neighbours  of  other  religious  denomina- 
tions. But  however  plausible  and  catholick  this,  at  first  sight, 
may  appear,  yet  I  am  persuaded  any  one  who  attentively  con- 
siders the  matter,  will,  with  me,  be  fully  convinced,  that  this 
is  only  used  as  a  palliative,  while  a  latent  project  is  carried 
on,  either  against  them  or  against  us.  If  the  secret  aim  is 
levelled  against  our  neighbours  of  other  persuasions,  to  lull 
them  asleep,  and  prevent  their  opposing  our  scheme  of  getting 
an  American  episcopate,  established  in  such  an  inoffensive  and 
harmless  shape,  hoping  afterwards  to  have  him  the  more  easily 
completely  vested  with  a  full  character;  if,  I  say,  this  is  the 
secret  aim,  'tis  manifest  the  pious  fraud  is  not  so  closely  con- 
cealed as  to  escape  their  notice,  as  is  evident  from  the  "  Ameri- 
can Whig,"  who  so  often  appears  in  this  paper,  and  whom 
I  shall  leave  to  manage  his  own  cause. 


124  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

But  why,  my  brethren,  should  others  take  the  alarm,  and 
we  sleep  on  serene?  Is  our  cause  invulnerable?  Or  is  it  im- 
possible there  should  be  any  evil  imagination,  and  secret  in- 
trigues carried  on  against  us?  .  .  .  Is  it  not  .  .  .  de- 
signed to  cajole  us  into  a  compliance  with  some  secret  design 
artfully  concealed  from  public  view?  It  is  well  known  that 
many  of  those  additional  powers,  conferred  on  Bishops  at 
home,  by  the  statutes  of  the  nation,  would  be  as  grievous  to 
us,  as  to  our  dissenting  neighbours;  and  to  which  (were  we 
apprised  of  it),  we  should  be  as  ready  to  make  opposition, 
as  they.  The  payment  of  tithes,  the  probate  of  Wills  the 
licence  of  marriages ;  but  above  all,  the  spiritual  courts,  that 
disgrace  of  our  Church,  and  intolerable  grievance  of  the  Na- 
tion; are  things  to  which  we  can  by  no  means  consent,  and 
against  the  introduction  of  which,  we  should  be  equally  op- 
posed, were  we  but  sensible  any  such  things  were  intended. 
If  our  secret  schemers  can  but  lull  us  to  sleep,  and  amuse 
us  with  the  expectation  of  having  Bishops  amongst  ourselves, 
from  whom  we  may  hope  for  signal  spiritual  advantages, 
and  thereby  prevail  with  us,  to  use  our  influence  for  facilitating 
their  designs,  in  procuring  to  be  set  over  us  such,  as  instead 
of  being  agreeable  to  our  wishes,  will  prove  the  very  reverse 
of  what  we  expected;  and  instead  of  being  a  blessing,  will 
really  prove  a  curse:  How  grievous  will  be  our  disappoint- 
ment ?  And  shall  we  not  ever  blame  ourselves  for  that  supine 
negligence,  whereby  we  now  suffer  ourselves  to  be  wheedled 
into  their  pernicious  devices?     .     .     ." 

This  extract  may  suffice  to  show  the  purport  of  the  letter, 
and  its  tendency  to  persuade  men  that  the  constant  affirma- 
tions of  the  Churchmen  that  they  desired  only  'Such  an  Episco- 
pate as  should  be  clothed  with  powers  purely  spiritual  —  in 
the  proper,  and  not  the  legal  and  technical  sense  of  that  word, 
—  and  that  they  totally  repudiated  the  desire  for  any  other 
kind  of  Episcopal  authority,  were  to  be   regarded   as   mere 


THE    COLONIAL    EPISCOPATE.  125 

pretence,  and  only  a  cover  for  the  introduction  of  a  spiritual 
Bishop  who  —  once  here  —  was  to  be  transformed  at  con- 
venience into  a  temporal  Bishop,  clothed  with  all  manner  of 
objectionable  attributes :  to  persuade  men,  moreover  that  the 
pressing  of  this  scheme  would  be  regarded  by  the  Government 
of  England  as  indicating  either  a  desire  to  be  independent  of 
English  connections,  or  a  desire  to  establish  an  Episcopal  au- 
thority over  all  the  colonists  —  neither  of  which  alternatives 
could  the  British  Ministry  countenance.  The  letter  is  really, 
in  its  kind,  a  masterly  performance  —  as  was  also  the  address 
of  the  Serpent  in  the  Garden  of  Eden  —  and  partakes  much 
more  of  the  wisdom  of  that  most  subtle  of  all  the  beasts  of 
the  field,  than  of  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove. 

It  is  remarkable  to  observe  the  harmony  of  tone  in  the 
utterances  of  the  opposition;  the  general  refusal  to  accept 
the  assurances  of  those  whom  they  opposed;  the  settled  pur- 
pose to  keep  ever  in  view  the  objectionable  features  of  the 
English  Episcopate,  and  to  stir  men's  minds  against  the 
American  plan,  as  being  merely  another  political  encroach- 
ment ;  the  determined  effort,  first  to  disturb  public  tranquillity, 
and  then  to  make  that  disturbance,  or  the  apprehension  of 
it,  the  ground  of  refusal  to  act  on  the  part  of  the  British 
Government.  One  can  hardly  avoid  the  inference  that  all  of 
this  was  the  result  of  a  settled  policy,  concerted  for  the  pur- 
pose of  promoting  the  disaffection  which  by  and  by  pro- 
duced separation:  and  one  is  sometimes  inclined  to  doubt 
whether  this  policy  were  not  aided,  if  not  set  on  foot,  in 
England;  or  whether  it  were  inspired  here,  and  industriously 
propagated  in  England,  and  thence  returned  again,  supported 
by  accounts  of  purposes  formed  there  for  the  enslavement  of 
the  Colonists. 

Dr.  Gordon,  in  his  history  of  the  American  Revolution, 
records  the  outline  of  a  plan  understood  to  have  been  laid 
in  England  for  the  better  mastery  of  the  Colonies,  in  which 


126  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  supplying  of  the  Episcopate  plays  an  important  part;  a 
project  to  which  he  himself  appears  to  have  given  credence  — 
though  the  first  news  of  it  in  this  Country  seems  to  have  come 
from  no  less  busy  and  untrustworthy  a  person  than  the  emo- 
tional Whitefield.  Whether  this  plan  were  really  conceived 
in  England,  or  were  bruited  about  there  so  that  it  might  be 
transported  thence  to  the  Colonies,  to  be  utilized  by  the  op- 
position party  as  a  goad  to  the  discontents  of  the  people,  it 
is  impossible  to  say.  But  it  certainly  was  used  here  and 
Gordon's  account  of  it  is  of  special  interest  as  showing  the 
political  aspect  of  the  controversy  in  regard  to  the  Colonial 
Episcopate,  and  how  the  insistence  upon  that  aspect  of  it 
added  to  the  popular  aversion  to  it  here,  and  to  the  Ministerial 
aversion  to  it  in  England. 

Gordon  relates  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whitefield,  before  leaving 
Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  2d  of 
April,  1764,  sent  for  Dr.  Langdon  and  Mr.  Haven,  the  Con- 
gregational Ministers  of  the  town,  and  upon  their  coming  to 
him  said,  "  I  can't  in  conscience  leave  the  town  without  ac- 
quainting you  with  a  secret.  My  heart  bleeds  for  America. 
O  poor  New  England.  There  is  a  deep  laid  plot  against 
both  your  civil  and  religious  liberties,  and  they  will  be  lost;" 
and  of  the  plan  referred  to  by  Whitefield  Gordon  says: 

"  Besides  the  general  design  of  taxing  the  Colonies,  the 
plan  was  probably,  this  in  substance  —  Let  the  Parliament  be 
engaged  to  enter  heartily  and  fully  into  American  matters ;  and 
then  under  its  sanction,  let  all  the  governments  be  altered, 
and  all  the  Councils  be  appointed  by  the  King,  and  the  As- 
semblies be  reduced  to  a  small  number  like  that  of  New  York. 
After  that,  the  more  effectually  to  secure  the  power  of  Civil 
government  by  the  junction  of  Church  influence,  let  there  be 
a  revisal  of  all  the  Acts  in  the  several  Colonies,  with  a  view 
of  setting  aside  those  in  particular,  which  provide  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  Ministers.     But  if  the  temper  of  the  people  makes 


THE   COLONIAL   EPISCOPATE.  12/ 

it  necessary,  let  a  new  bill  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  them 
pass  the  house,  and  the  Council  refuse  their  concurrence;  if 
that  will  be  improper,  then  the  governor  to  negative  it.  If 
that  cannot  be  done  in  good  policy,  then  the  bill  to  go  home, 
and  let  the  King  disallow  it.  Let  bishops  be  introduced,  and 
provision  be  made  for  the  support  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy. 
Let  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  clergy,  who  will  re- 
ceive episcopal  ordination,  be  supported;  and  the  leading 
ministers  among  them  be  bought  off  by  large  salaries. —  Let 
the  Liturgy  be  revised  and  altered.  Let  episcopacy  be  accom- 
modated as  much  as  possible  to  the  cast  of  the  people.  Let 
places  of  power,  trust  and  honour  be  conferred  only  upon 
Episcopalians,  or  those  that  will  conform.  When  episcopacy 
is  once  thoroughly  established,  increase  its  resemblance  to  the 
English  hierarchy  at  pleasure. 

These  were  the  ideas  which  a  certain  gentleman  communi- 
cated to  Dr.  Stiles,  when  they  were  riding  together  in  1765. 
The  Doctor,  after  hearing  him  out,  expressed  his  belief,  that 
before  the  plan  could  be  effected,  such  a  spirit  would  be 
roused  in  the  people,  as  would  prevent  its  execution."  '^ 

Nothing  could  be  more  apt  than  this  plan  to  the  use  of 
those  in  this  Country  who  sought  to  promote  the  disaffection 
of  the  people;  and  nothing,  it  may  be  added,  could  be  much 
nearer  to  the  arguments  commonly  used  for  that  purpose. 
And  if  the  people  to  whom  such  appeals  were  made  believed 
but  the  half  of  what  was  thus  urged  upon  them,  their  con- 
demnation of  the  Colonial  Episcopate  is  sufficiently  accounted 
for. 

Nor  is  it  surprising  that  the  influence  exercised  against  the 
introduction  of  the  Episcopate  here,  should  have  had  that 
effect  in  England  which  it  was  designed  to  have ;  and  that  all 
the  efforts  there  of  those  who  were  friendly  to  the  project, 

7.  Gordon's  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  I,  pp.  114-115. 


128  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

and  who  sought  to  further  it,  should  have  been  met  with  in- 
difference, evasion,  and  all  the  compact  resistance  of  a  mas- 
terly inactivity.  Ears  might  be  open  and  patiently  receptive ; 
tongues  might  be  turned  to  the  soothing  phrase  of  diplomatic 
assurance ;  but  in  respect  of  action,  there  was  paralysis.^ 

And  so  the  battle  for  the  Colonial  Episcopate  was  lost :  but 
the  contest  for  the  American  Episcopate  was  not  yet  closed, 
though  its  prosecution  was  necessarily  suspended  for  the 
present.  It  was  to  be  resumed  later,  under  circumstances  al- 
most equally  discouraging;  notwithstanding  which  it  was  ul- 
timately pushed  to  a  successful  issue.  It  would  seem  that 
in  the  counsels  of  Divine  Providence  the  time  had  not  until 
then  been  fully  ripe  for  the  gift  of  that  "  free,  valid  and 
purely  Ecclesiastical "  Episcopacy  which  the  Colonial  Church- 
men so  earnestly  desired,  but  the  bearing  of  which  upon  fu- 
ture conditions  both  civil  and  Ecclesiastical  they  could  not  be 
expected  to  foresee.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  Colonial  Episcopate  would  have  tended,  so 
far  as  its  influence  might  go,  to  such  a  fusion  or  consolida- 
tion of  the  Colonists  as  would  have  predisposed  them  to  some 
form  of  centralized  Government;  and  would  thus  have 
operated  to  the  hindrance,  if  not  the  prevention,  of  that  Federal 
Union  which  was  afterwards  established  both  in  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  policy,  and  the  principles  of  which,  if  duly  ob- 
served are  most  conducive  to  the  preservation  of  constitutional 
liberty  in  each.  And  for  this  reason  among  others,  while  one 
may  fully  sympathize  with  the  disappointment  and  disad- 
vantages of  the  Colonial  Churchmen^  and  regard  them  as  en- 
tirely justified  in  their  contention  against  the  wrong  and  in- 
justice which  they  suffered,  he  may  perhaps,  be  excused  for 

8.  Cf.  the  collection  of  letters  from  Archbishop  Seeker  and  others, 
in  the  appendix  to  Chandler's  life  of  Johnson;  and  also  Anderson's 
Colonial  Church,  III,  430-436. 


THE   COLONIAL   EPISCOPATE.  129 

thinking  that  the  failure  to  obtain  the  Colonial  Episcopate  was 
not  an  altogether  unmixed  evil. 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  hoped  that  the  present  chapter, 
though  with  no  pretence  to  be  a  history  of  the  movement  for 
such  an  Episcopate  —  which  would  involve  the  history  of  the 
Colonial  Church  —  may  have  contributed  something  to  the 
better  understanding  of  the  political  significance  of  the  ques- 
tion involved  in  the  movement;  and,  by  consequence,  to  the 
better  understanding  of  the  position  of  those  of  the  Colonial 
Clergy  who  adhered  to  the  existing  order  of  Government. 
For  it  was  altogether  natural,  when  that  which  they  had 
with  all  simplicity  advocated  on  purely  religious  grounds,  was 
classed  by  their  adversaries  among  the  political  grievances 
of  the  day,  that  they  should  range  themselves  against  their 
opponents  not  only  in  respect  of  this  movement,  but  also  in 
respect  of  the  properly  political  issues  with  which  they  found 
it  thus  associated. 


CHAPTER  X. 

POLITICAL  EXPERIENCES. 

1774-1783. 

IT  is  the  counsel  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  that  the  servant 
of  God  must  not  strive :  and  it  seems  at  first  sight  as  if 
there  were  something  contrary  to  the  Christian  character 
in  controversy.  But  of  course  there  is  a  distinction  between 
mere  disputation  conducted  with  rancour  and  leading  to  in- 
jurious personalities,  and  a  firm  upholding  of  the  right, 
coupled  with  a  just  resentment  against  wrong.  St.  Paul  him- 
self, with  all  reverence  be  it  said,  was  by  no  means  back- 
ward in  strenuous  assertion  of  his  rights  when  he  thought 
them  unjustly  assailed;  as,  for  example,  when  his  persecutors 
thought  that  he  would  be  glad,  after  scourging  and  imprison- 
ment, if  he  had  opportunity,  quietly  and  without  scandal  to 
take  himself  out  of  their  way,  they  found  that  he  indignantly 
spurned  that  offer.  "  They  have  beaten  us  openly,  uncon- 
demned,  being  Romans,  and  have  cast  us  into  prison ;  and  now 
do  they  seek  to  thrust  us  out  privily?  Nay,  verily,  but  let 
them  come  themselves  and  fetch  us  out."  ^  And,  on  another 
occasion,  outraged  with  the  injustice  of  one  before  whom  he 
had  been  arraigned,  and  who  had  commanded  him  to  be  smit- 
ten on  the  mouth,  he  cried  out,  "  God  shall  smite  thee  thou 
whited  wall:  for  sittest  thou  to  judge  me  after  the  law,  and 
commandest  me  to  be  smitten  contrary  to  the  law  ?  "  ^    And 

1.  Acts  XVI,  37. 

2,  Acts  XXIII,  i-s. 

130 


POLITICAL    EXPERIENCES.  I3I 

although  when  he  was  reproached  for  thus  reviHng  God's 
high  priest,  he  said,  "  I  wist  not  brethren  that  he  was  the 
high  priest,"  yet  (as  that  noted  controversiaHst  Dr.  John 
Henry  Hopkins  once  remarked  to  me  with  a  twinkle  in  his 
eye),  "he  never  took  it  hack!" 

The  most  quiet  and  even  tempered  man  may  in  fact  some- 
times find  himself  in  a  position  which  involves  either  his 
abandonment  of  truth  and  justice,  or  his  plain  and  forcible 
assertion  of  them  against  those  who  have  betrayed  or  misrepre- 
sented them.  The  subject  of  the  present  memoir  was  naturally 
a  man  of  cool  and  impartial  judgment,  and  amiable  disposi- 
tion. But  he  had  strong  convictions,  and  remarkable  capacity 
for  the  forcible  expression  of  them.  He  was  quick  to  see 
and  to  resent  a  wrong  either  to  himself  personally,  or  to  the 
principles  for  which  he  stood ;  and  he  was  so  situated  as  to  be 
involved  in  controversy,  or  personal  argument  with  those  who 
differed  from  him,  almost  throughout  his  life.  The  contro- 
versies through  which  we  have  hitherto  followed  him  were 
largely  of  a  personal  character,  though  they  seem  to  have 
involved  defence  of  principles  of  more  extended  application 
than  to  his  own  case  only;  and  his  conduct  of  these  contro- 
versies exhibits  the  force  and  independence  of  his  character, 
and  also  a  good  deal  of  the  vehemence  of  temper  which  was 
natural  to  the  time  of  life  in  which  he  was  involved  in  them. 
The  argumentative  papers  of  his  later  years  show  a  marked 
difference  in  this  latter  respect,  displaying  a  tone  and  manner 
more  calm  and  judicial,  and  being  wholly  wanting  in  the  satire 
and  invective  of  earlier  days.  Between  these  two  phases 
come  the  political  controversies ;  in  which  the  fire  of  his  youth 
and  the  energy  of  his  maturity  combine,  and  seem  to  bring  him 
to  the  climax  of  all  of  this  sort  of  writing.  It  will  be  necessary 
to  give  some  account  of  these  as  part  of  the  experience  which 
he  passed  through  by  reason  of  the  political  embroilments 
which  drove  him  out  of  his  Rectorate  at  St,  Peters,  and  forced 


132  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOr    SEABURY. 

him  to  keep  within  the  British  Hues  in  New  York  until  the 
concUision  of  the  war  to  which  they  led.  In  fact  these  po- 
litical controversies,  and  the  incidents  connected  with  them, 
form  the  chief  part  of  what  is  known  of  his  life  from  the 
period  which  we  have  now  reached  until  the  end  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary War.  They  seem  to  have  had  their  beginning  in 
the  very  earliest  days  of  his  ministry,  while  he  was  still  at 
New  Brunswick:  and  to  have  been  carried  on  through  the 
newspapers  of  the  day,  and  finally  to  have  taken  form  in  a 
series  of  pamphlets  which  he  wrote  under  the  signature  of 
A.  W.  Farmer.  These  papers  were  highly  valued  by  those 
who  were  interested  to  maintain  the  existing  government  in 
the  Colonies;  and  excited  a  very  bitter  animosity  among  the 
Revolutionary  party :  and  so  far  as  he  was  suspected  to  be  the 
author  of  them  that  animosity  was  personally  vented  upon 
him.  His  whole  position  has  been  severely  condemned  not 
only  by  those  who  were  successful  in  the  struggle  against  the 
existing  government,  but  also  by  many  of  those  who  after- 
wards enjoyed  the  benefit  of  their  success,  and  who  have  not 
been  wanting  in  the  endeavour  to  cover  with  obloquy  the 
memory  of  those  who  had  tried  to  hinder  that  success,  and  of 
him  among  the  number.  In  the  course  of  time  a  great  deal 
of  that  feeling  has  passed  away ;  and  there  has  been  evident  the 
growth  of  a  much  fairer  judgment,  and  a  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  those  who  are  classed  under  the  general  names  of 
Loyalists  or  Royalists  were  not  necessarily  the  treasonable 
enemies  of  their  Country:  but  there  is  still  a  considerable 
prejudice,  even  if  it  take  the  form  only  of  a  tolerant  pity  for 
those  who  were  so  misguided  as  to  have  fought  their  battle  on 
the  losing  side,  which  is  assumed  to  have  been  of  course  the 
side  which  deserved  to  lose,  as  having  been  the  exponent  of 
injustice  and  tyranny.  This  attitude  is  perhaps  natural 
enough  as  human  nature  is  constituted,  but  it  is  hardly  to  be 
commended  as  an  example  of  just  judgment. 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  133 

There  are  several  considerations  which  ought  to  be  taken 
into  account  on  the  other  side  in  order  to  a  better  balance  of 
judgment;  and,  without  any  apology  for  the  position  of  the 
subject  of  this  memoir,  the  statement  of  them  may  help  to 
the  juster  estimate  of  it.  The  hostility  which  had  been  dis- 
played toward  the  Episcopate  by  the  advocates  of  the  Colonial 
cause  against  the  government,  would  naturally  be  regarded 
by  the  Churchman  as  putting  him  on  the  defensive,  because  his 
whole  hope  as  a  Churchman  depended  on  obtaining  the  Epis- 
copate. The  extension  of  that  hostility  to  the  Society  for 
propagating  the  Gospel,  would  greatly  intensify  his  defensive 
feeling,  since  very  large  part  of  the  support  of  the  Church 
was  derived  from  the  Society.  But  apart  from  the  feeling  of 
the  Qiurchman,  there  was  the  feeling  also  of  the  Citizen  who 
considered  himself  safe  both  as  to  his  person  and  liberties 
under  a  system  of  Government  which  was,  in  principle  at  least, 
firmly  based  upon  the  idea  of  protection  to  personal  rights ; 
although  there  was  room  for  difference  of  opinion  upon  the 
question  whether  in  practice  that  Government  was  consistently 
carrying  out  the  ideas  on  which  it  was  based.  It  has  too  often 
been  overlooked  that  up  to,  and  throughout  the  Revolution, 
men  were  simply  differing  as  to  the  proper  determination  of 
open  questions:  and  it  has  been  in  consequence  too  easily  as- 
sumed that  the  success  of  one  party  not  only  determined  those 
differences,  but  also  proved  that  they  always  had  been  deter- 
mined, and  had  been  binding  in  right  and  conscience  upon  every 
member  of  the  community,  all  the  while.  Hence  these  were 
traitors,  and  those  were  patriots.  Always,  however,  there  was 
difference  of  opinion ;  and  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  the 
so-called  patriotic  opinions  were  ever  held  by  the  majority  of  all 
the  Colonists.  That  such  was  the  case  in  some  places  was  no 
doubt  true ;  but  that  it  was  so  in  all  places  would  be  difficult  to 
prove,  and  I  believe  never  has  been  proved.  Certainly  in  the 
Province  of  New  York  there  was  very  reasonable  ground  for 


134  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  feeling  of  Ihose  who  stood  by  the  existing  order,  that  the 
opposition  was  maintained  by  a  faction  which  made  up  in 
noise  what  it  lacked  in  numbers.  And  again  it  is  not  always 
considered  that  these  differences  of  opinion  related  not  merely 
to  particular  measures,  but  also  to  principles  much  deeper  than 
those  of  mere  expediency,  and  such  as  concerned  not  only  the 
integrity  of  the  British  Empire,  but  even  the  preservation  of 
any  kind  of  government.  And  more  than  all  it  ought  to  be 
remembered  by  those  who  stand  for  liberty,  that  nothing  can 
be  more  abhorrent  to  a  free  man  than  the  meddlesome  assump- 
tion of  authority  by  those  who  are  but  fellow  citizens  under 
under  the  same  government,  and  thus  have  no  more  right 
over  him  and  his  actions,  than  he  has  over  them  and  their 
actions. 

I  am  not  concerned  to  argue  these  positions,  but  desire  only 
to  aid  the  reader,  so  far  as  may  be  needed,  to  understand  the 
point  of  view  from  which  the  subject  of  the  present  story  re- 
garded the  state  of  affairs  which  confronted  him ;  so  that  he 
may  have  that  fair  judgment  which  every  man  ought  to  have, 
and  which  recognizes  the  right  of  every  man  to  take  all  lawful 
means  to  preserve  and  maintain  the  truth  as  he  understands 
it.  My  purpose  is  to  record  as  clearly  as  I  can  what  my  sub- 
ject did,  and  why  he  did  it;  and  to  this  end  in  the  present 
matter  to  relate  his  course  in  the  events  which  led  to  the  Revo- 
lution, giving  some  account  of  the  chief  of  his  political  papers, 
and  making  a  few  extracts  from  them  in  order  to  show  what 
his  views  were  in  some  particulars,  and  also  something  of  the 
style  and  manner  in  which  he  presented  those  views ;  and  thus 
to  bring  him  into  the  better  acquaintance  of  the  reader,  which 
I  cannot  but  think  will  conduce  to  the  benefit  of  both. 

It  seems  to  be  somewhat  in  anticipation  of  the  story,  but  it 
will  be  so  much  of  an  advantage  to  let  the  subject  of  it  speak 
for  himself,  that  I  propose  to  refer  here  to  a  manuscript  of  his 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  135 

which  is  dated  so  late  as  1783,  and  which  gives  in  some  detail 
certain  events  which  belong  to  the  present  part  of  the  narra- 
tive. It  is  only  necessary  to  say  in  explanation  of  his  paper, 
that  in  the  early  part  of  the  War  he  was  appointed  by  Sir 
Henry  Clinton  the  Chaplain  of  the  King's  American  Regiment 
commanded  by  Colonel  Fanning,  and  that  he  served  in  that 
capacity  until  the  conclusion  of  the  War.  Immediately  upon 
the  knowledge  of  this  he  was  elected  by  the  Clergy  of  Connec- 
ticut to  the  Episcopate,  to  secure  which  he  set  sail  for  England, 
and  taking  up  his  residence  in  London,  was  allowed  by  the 
authorities  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  to  continue  that  residence, 
in  the  illusory  hope  of  obtaining  consecration,  for  some  six- 
teen months.  These  points  will  be  taken  up  later.  The  point 
at  present  to  be  noted  is  that  having  no  means  of  any  conse- 
quence when  he  started,  he  found  them  much  less,  and  re- 
duced to  the  vanishing  point  during  his  residence  in  London ; 
and  in  order  to  maintain  himself  he  sought  to  secure  from  the 
British  Government  some  pension  or  award  in  consideration 
of  the  services  which  he  had  notably  rendered  to  the  cause  of 
that  government  in  the  effort  to  preserve  the  Colonies  to  it. 

In  order  to  that  end  he  prepared  for  presentation  "  to  the 
Right  Honorable  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  His  Majesty's 
Treasury,"  a  Memorial  setting  forth  his  services  and  his  cir- 
cumstances, and  asking  for  such  relief  as  might  be  deemed  just. 
He  seems  to  have  heard  nothing  from  this  Memorial  for 
nearly  ten  years  afterward,  and  then  to  have  received  a  small 
matter  of  thirty  pounds ;  so  that  his  effort  in  this  direction  was 
practically  fruitless.  The  value  of  the  Memorial  to  us,  how- 
ever, is  in  its  historical  statements ;  and  as  it  has  never  before, 
so  far  as  I  am  aware,  been  published,  I  now  present  it  from 
the  copy  which  he  kept  for  himself  in  his  own  hand- 
writing, and  which  has  ever  since  been  preserved  among  his 
papers. 


136  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

"  To  D.  P.  Coke  EsqR.  J.  Wilmot  Esq«. 

Col :  —  &c. 

Commissioners  &c. 

The  Memorial  of  Samuel  Seabury  Doctor  in  Divinity,'  late 
Rector  of  West  Chester  in  New  York,  &  Missionary  &c :  most 
respectfully  showeth, 

That  your  Memorialist  was  born  in  Connecticut,  in  the  year 
1729,  and  was  the  son  of  a  Clerg'yman  of  the  first  reputation 
in  that  Country:  That  in  1753  your  Memorialist  was  ordained 
in  England,  admitted  into  the  service  of  the  Society,  &  sent  to 
reside  at  New  Brunswick  in  New  Jersey:  That  about  this 
time  periodical  papers  &  essays  began  to  be  published  in  New 
York,  tending  to  corrupt  the  principles  of  the  people  with  re- 
gard to  Government,  &  to  weaken  their  attachment  to  the 
constitution  of  this  country  both  in  Church  and  State :  That 
a  paper  of  this  nature,  making  its  appearance,  stiled  the 
Watch-Tozverj  supposed  to  be  written  by  Mr.  Livingston,  the 
present  Governor  of  New  Jersey,  &  others,  your  Memorialist 
did,  in  conjunction  with  a  number  of  his  Brethren  &  friends, 
write  several  essays  &  papers  in  answer  to  the  Watch-tower, 
with  a  view  to  prevent  the  ill  effects  it  might  have  on  the 
minds  of  the  people. 

That  some  years  after,  when  it  was  evident,  from  continual 
publications  in  Newspapers,  &  from  the  uniting  of  all  the 
jarring  interests  of  the  Independents  and  Presbyterians  from 
Massachusetts  bay  to  Georgia,  under  Grand  Committees  & 
Synods,  that  some  mischievous  Scheme  was  meditated  against 
the  Church  of  England  &  the  British  Government  in  America, 
your  Memorialist  did  enter  into  an  agreement  with  The  Rev'^. 
Dr.  T.  B.  Ch(andler)  then  of  Eliz:  Town,  New  Jersey  & 
with  the  Rev^.  Dr.  Inglis  the  present  Rector  of  Trinity  Church 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  to  watch  all  publications  either  in 

3.  The  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  was  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
University  of  Oxford,  December  15,   1777. 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  137 

newspapers  or  pamphlets,  &  to  obviate  the  evil  influence  of 
such  as  appeared  to  have  a  bad  tendency  by  the  speediest  an- 
swers: That  your  Memorialist  faithfully  &  steadily  acted  in 
conjunction  with  the  above  named  gentlemen  to  the  time  of  his 
leaving  New  York:  That  he  &  his  two  associates  bore  the 
whole  weight  of  the  controversy  with  the  American  Whig, 
which  continued  near  2  years:  That  this  paper  was  the  im- 
mediate fore  runner  of  the  late  Rebellion;  and  pointed  out  to 
the  Americans  a  separation  from  G.  B. —  the  rise  of  an  Amer. 
Empire,  &  the  fall  of  the  British  Empire  &  government.  That 
none  of  these  mischievous  papers  went  unanswered;  &  your 
Memorialist  &  his  friends  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  & 
knowing  that  their  antagonists  were  silenced,  &,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  public,  written  down : 

That  when  the  late  commotions  in  America  began,  your 
Memorialist  lived  at  West  Chester  in  the  then  Province  of 
New  York,  &  was,  though  not  in  wealthy,  yet  in  easy  circum- 
stances, &  supported  a  large  family,  viz :  a  wife  &  six  children, 
comfortably  &  decently:  That  his  income  was  at  least  200  £ 
sterl.  p*".  ann.  arising  from  his  Parish,  Glebe  and  from  a  gram- 
mar school  in  which  he  had  more  than  20  young  Gentlemen, 
when  the  Rebellion  began. 

That  perceiving  matters  were  taking  a  most  serious  & 
alarming  turn,  your  Memorialist  thought  it  his  duty  to  exert 
his  utmost  abilities  &  influence  in  support  of  that  Government 
under  which  he  had  lived,  to  which  he  had  sworn  obedience  & 
which  he  loved  and  revered:  That  he  therefore  from  the 
beginning  opposed  the  election  of  all  Committees  &  Con- 
gresses—  in  pursuance  of  which  object,  he  rode  many  days 
in  the  county  of  West  Chester ;  That  he  assembled  the  friends 
of  Government  and  at  their  head  opposed  the  lawless  meetings 
&  measures  of  the  disaffected.  That  at  one  time,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  his  friend  Isaac  Wilkins  Esq^  he  assembled  near  400 
friends  of  Government  at  the  White  Plains,  who  openly  op- 


138  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

posed  &  protested  against  any  Congress,  Convention  or  Com- 
mittee, &  who  were  determined  if  possible  to  support  the  legal 
Government  of  their  country:  That  their  proceedings  and 
protest  were  published  in  Mr.  Rivington's  Gazette,  &  there 
was  no  way  of  getting  rid  of  such  an  opposition,  but  for  the 
disaflfected  in  New  York  to  send  for  an  armed  force  from 
Connecticut  into  the  County  of  West  Chester,  which  they  did 
&  under  its  power  carried  all  their  points. —  That  in  confirma- 
tion of  these  facts,  your  Memorialist  begs  leave  to  refer  in 
Particular  to  Col.  Ja^.  De  Lancey  (No.  5  Edw^.  Street,)  who 
was  present  at  several  of  these  meetings,  &  to  whom  your 
Memorialist's  conduct  &  situation  at  West  Chester  are  well 
known. 

That  while  your  Memorialist  was  thus  employing  his  per- 
sonal influence  in  his  own  county,  he  was  not  inattentive  to  the 
engagement  he  had  entered  into  with  D".  C.  &  I,  nor  to  the 
obligations  of  duty  which  he  owed  to  his  King  &  Country  — 
but  published  a  pamphlet  entitled  Free  thoughts  on  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia,  very  soon  after  the 
first  Congress  broke  up,  &  had  shown  by  their  adopting  the 
Suffolk  resolves  that  they  had  entered  into  a  deep  scheme  of 
rebellion  which  pamphlet  he  addressed  to  the  Farmers  & 
Landowners,  intending  to  point  out,  in  a  way  accommodated 
to  their  comprehension,  the  destructive  influence  that  the  meas- 
ures of  the  Congress,  if  pursued,  would  have  on  the  farmers 
&  the  labouring  part  of  the  Community.  That  as  no  pamphlet 
at  that  period  seems  to  have  given  the  republicans  more  un- 
easiness than  this,  several  answers  to  it  were  published ;  which 
obliged  your  Memorialist  to  write  another  pamphlet  in  support 
of  it,  called  the  Congress  Canvassed,  previous  to  which  he  had 
published  An  address  to  the  Merchants  of  New  York;  In  which 
he  endeavoured  to  convince  them  of  the  evil  tendency  of  the 
Non-importation  &  non-exportation  agreements,  &  that  their 
happiness  &  true  interest  depended  on  their  connection  with  & 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  I39 

subordination  to  G.  B.*  That  at  the  meeting  of  the  next  As- 
sembly he  published  An  Alarm  to  the  Legislature  of  New 
York  —  in  which  he  endeavoured  to  show  that  by  adopting 
and  establishing  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  as  most 
other  Assemblies  had  done,  they  would  betray  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  their  constituents,  set  up  a  new  sovereign  power  in 
the  province  and  plunge  it  into  all  the  horrors  of  rebellion  & 
civil  war. 

That  your  Memorialist  had  also  personal  interviews  with  at 
least  one  third  of  the  members  of  that  house,  with  whom  he 
was  well  acquainted,  just  before  their  meeting.  How  far  his 
writings  or  conversation  had  any  influence  he  presumes  not  to 
say.     The  Assembly  however  rejected  the  proceedings  of  the 

4.  The  Memorialist  appears  to  have  here  fallen  into  an  inadver- 
tence which,  considering  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the  stress  of  interme- 
diate experiences,  and  his  residence  in  a  foreign  country  away  from  his 
papers,  was  certainly  not  unnatural.  In  point  of  fact,  the  three 
pamphlets  which  he  had  printed  were,  (i)  the  "Free  Thoughts," 
dated  November  16,  1774,  addressed  to  the  farmers;  (2)  the  "  Congress 
Canvassed,"  addressed  to  the  merchants  of  New  York,  dated  Novem- 
ber 28,  1774;  and  (3)  "A  View  of  the  controversy  between  Great 
Britain  and  her  Colonies,"  dated  December  24,  1774.  These  titles  are 
taken  by  me  from  the  three  pamphlets  now  before  me ;  and  a  com- 
parison of  them  with  the  Memorialist's  statement,  makes  his  incidental 
inadvertence  obvious. 

It  is  curious  to  note,  as  showing  how  easily  historical  facts  may, 
with  the  best  possible  intentions,  be  misrepresented,  that  Ch.  J.  Shea, 
in  his  valuable  life  of  Hamilton  (p.  198)  refers  to  the  Congress  Can- 
vassed and  the  Address  to  the  Merchants  of  New  York,  as  if  these 
were  two  pamphlets  instead  of  one.  I  have  been  at  a  loss  to  account 
for  this  literary  instance  of  "  seeing  double,"  until  now  I  recall  the 
fact  (noted  on  the  cover  of  this  Memorial)  that  I  had  loaned  the 
Memorial  to  Judge  Shea;  and  it  is  thus  apparent  that  he  simply  fol- 
lowed the  original  manuscript.  If  he  had  had  before  him  the  pamphlets 
themselves,  as  I  now  have,  he  would  have  discovered  the  Memorialist's 
natural  inadvertence. —  W.  J.  S. 


140  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Congress,  &  applied  to  the  King  &  Parliament  by  Petition  & 
Memorial;  That  several  pamphlets  were  published  under  the 
signature  of  A.  W.  Farmer ;  &  that  they  were  written  by  your 
Memorialist,  he  refers  to  the  certificate  of  Dr.  M.  Cooper, 
hereunto  annexed,  &  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Chandler. 

That  your  Memorialist  soon  became  suspected  of  writing  in 
support  of  legal  Government,  &  on  that  account,  &  on  account 
of  his  having  acted  openly  in  its  support  in  the  county  of  West 
Chester,  he  became  one  of  the  first  objects  of  revenge;  &  so 
early  as  April  1775,  a  friend  sending  his  son  to  acquaint  him 
that  a  body  of  New  England  troops  then  at  Rye,  15  miles  from 
his  house,  intended  to  seize  him  &  Isaac  Wilkins  Esq*",  member 
for  West  Chester  that  very  night,  they  were  obliged  to  retire 
for  some  time.  Mr.  Wilkins  did  not  return  home,  but  soon 
embarked  for  England :  ^  That  after  some  time  your  Memo- 
rialist hearing  of  no  further  threat  ventured  home,  &  continued 
unmolested,  though  occasionally  reviled  by  particular  people 
for  not  paying  obedience  to  the  order  of  Congress  enjoining 
fast  days  &c:  until  the  iQth  of  Nov^  1775,  when  an  armed 
force  of  100  horsemen  came  from  Connecticut  to  his  House,  & 
not  finding  him  at  home  they  beat  his  children  to  oblige  them 
to  tell  where  their  father  was  —  which  not  succeeding  they 
searched  the  neighbourhood  and  took  him  from  his  school,  & 
with  much  abusive  language  carried  him  in  great  triumph  to 

5.  In  referring  to  the  retirement  of  the  Memorialist  to  escape  cap- 
ture by  the  troops  at  Rye,  Dr.  Beardsley  in  his  life  of  Bishop  Seabury 
(p.  31,  n.)  gives  the  following  quotation  from  Bolton's  History  of  the 
Church  in  West  Chester  County  (p.  86,  ed.  1855). 

"In  the  old  Wilkins  Mansion  on  Castle  Hill  Neck,  West  Chester, 
is  still  shown  the  place  where  Drs.  Cooper,  Chandler,  and  Seabury  man- 
aged to  secrete  themselves  for  some  time,  notwithstanding  the  most 
minute  and  persevering  search  was  made  for  them ;  so  ingeniously 
contrived  was  the  place  of  their  concealment  in  and  about  the  old- 
fashioned  chimney.  Food  was  conveyed  to  them  through  a  trap-door 
in  the  floor." 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  14I 

New  Haven,  70  miles  distant,  where  he  was  paraded  through 
most  of  the  streets,  &  their  success  celebrated  by  firing  of 
Cannon  &c:  That  at  New  Haven  he  was  confined  under  a 
military  guard  &  keepers  for  six  weeks,  during  which  time 
they  endeavoured  to  fix  the  publication  oi  A.  W.  Farmers 
pamphlets  on  him;  which  failing,  &  some  of  the  principal 
people  in  that  country  disapproving  their  conduct,  your  Me- 
morialist was  permitted  to  return  home ;  ^  where  he  remained 
in  tolerable  quiet  till  the  next  Spring;  That  then  he  suflFered 
much  both  from  insults  and  the  loss  of  property,  by  the  parties 
of  recruits  who  were  almost  daily  passing  through  his  Parish 
to  New  York,  to  form  that  Army  which  was  afterwards  de- 
feated on  Long  Island.  And  though  your  Memorialist  lived 
two  miles  out  of  their  way,  they  would  come  and  take  up 

6.  A  letter  from  the  President  of  the  Provincial  Congress  of  New- 
York  to  the  Governor  of  Connecticut,  demanding  his  "  immediate 
discharge,"  and  dated  the  12th  of  December,  was  read  before  the  Lower 
House  of  the  Assembly,  and  six  of  its  members,  with  Dr.  Wm.  Samuel 
Johnson,  of  the  Upper  House,  were  appointed  to  take  it  into  consid- 
eration and  report  how  it  should  be  answered.  The  Memorial  of  Mr. 
Seabury  was  subsequently  referred  to  the  same  Committee,  and,  after 
due  deliberation,  they  recommended  as  expedient  and  proper  that  all 
parties  concerned  in  the  matter  of  it  "  be  heard  by  themselves  or  coun- 
sel before  both  Houses  of  Assembly,"  and  the  question  being  put  in 
the  Lower  House  on  accepting  the  report,  it  was  decided  in  the  neg- 
ative. 

The  Memorialist,  however,  was  speedily  released  from  his  confine- 
ment, and  he  returned  to  his  family  after  Christmas,  arriving  in  West 
Chester  on  the  2d  of  January.     Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  pp. 

42,  43- 

The  Memorial  here  referred  to  by  Dr.  Beardsley  was  addressed  by 
Mr.  Seabury,  December  20,  1775,  "to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Governor  and  Company  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut."  It  is  printed 
in  full  by  Dr.  Beardsley  in  his  Life,  pp.  36-42,  from  the  Bishop's 
draft  in  my  possession.  It  is  extremely  full  and  interesting  in  regard 
to  the  episode  alluded  to  in  the  Memorial  to  the  Commissioners  in 
the  present  text,  but  it  seems  unnecessary  to  reproduce  it  here.     W.  J.  S. 


142  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

their  quarters  at  his  house  every  two  or  three  nights  &  seldom 
quitted  while  they  found  anything-  to  eat  or  drink:  That  on 
these  occasions  he  has  been  often  so  threatened  that  afraid  to 
go  to  bed,  while  they  were  in  his  house,  he  has  walked  his 
room  all  night  after  fastening  his  door  &  armed  himself  in  the 
best  manner  he  could:  That  matters  at  last  became  so  bad 
that  your  Memorialist  was  obliged  to  leave  his  house  when- 
ever he  heard  of  any  parties  being  in  the  neighbourhood,  &  go 
to  some  friend's  house  till  the  dusk  of  the  evening,  and  then 
go  where  he  designed  to  lodge  that  night,  without  letting  any 
person,  not  even  his  own  family,  know  where  he  was ;  &  scarce 
ever  venturing  to  sleep  two  nights  successively  in  the  same 
place.  This  continued  three  months,  when  the  victory  ob- 
tained by  the  Royal  army  at  Brooklyn  on  the  27th  of  August 
1776  gave  him  an  opportunity  of  taking  refuge  with  them 
which  he  did  on  the  first  of  Sept'". : 

That  your  Memorialist  continued  with  the  Army  on  Long 
Island  &  during  the  progress  thro'  W.  C.  County  eight  weeks, 
endeavouring  to  procure  the  best  intelligence  &  guides  he 
could,  &  flatters  himself  that  his  services  were  not  altogether 
useless : 

That  your  Memorialist  begs  leave  further  to  observe  that 
while  he  was  with  the  Army  on  Long  Island  there  were  20 
American  dragoons  quartered  at  his  house;  That  everything 
on  the  glebe  was  destroyed,  Hay,  Corn  &c :  &  when  they  went 
away,  his  horses,  cattle  &  swine  were  driven  off,  to  the  value 
of  at  least  50  i  sterling  — 

That  in  November,  when  the  Royal  Army  left  the  county 
of  West  Chester,  your  Memorialist  was  obliged  to  remove  his 
family  to  New  York  for  safety;  and  he  was  then  so  reduced 
in  his  circumstances  as  to  be  obliged  to  subsist  his  family  on 
credit,  &  on  some  charitable  donations  from  this  Country  to 
the  suffering  Clergy  in  America :  "^ 

7.  The   following   extract    from    a   letter   of   the    Revd.    Dr.    T.    B. 


POLITICAL    EXPERIENCES.  143 

That  in  June  1777,  he  was  appointed  by  Sir  WilHam  Howe 
Chaplain  to  the  Provincial  Hospital  at  New  York;  and  in 
January  1778  Chaplain  to  the  Kings  Amer".  Reg^  both  which 
appointments  he  enjoyed  till  he  left  New  York,  which  was  on 
the  7th  of  June  last: 

That  he  always  supposed  these  emoluments  to  be  as  much 
as  he  had  a  right  to  expect  from  Government,  &  should  still  be 
satisfied  &  contented  with  them  were  they  to  continue:  But 
that  the  Chaplaincy  of  the  Provincial  Hospital  he  supposes 
has  ceased,  &  that  the  King's  Amer".  Reg*,  is  or  will  soon  be 
reduced ;  and  it  has  been  represented  to  him  as  an  uncertainty 
whether  he  shall  even  enjoy  the  half  pay  of  that  Reg^ :  That 
he  never  has  received  any  Advantage  from  his  Parish  since 
he  left  it,  but  that  there  was  then  &  is  still  due  to  him  a  con- 
siderable arrearage  of  salary. 

That  it  is  with  great  reluctance  &  many  awkward  sensations 

Chandler,  dated  London,  April  8,  1776,  is  of  interest  as  showing  the 
source  and  direction  of  the  channel  of  benevolence  here  referred  to, 
and  also,  incidentally,  as  throwing  light  upon  the  character  and  merits 
of  the  Memorialist  to  whom  it  had  been  addressed  some  time  before 
the  receipt  of  the  benefaction  which  he  mentions : 

"  I  was  much  surprised  to  find  that  your  true  character  was  not 
better  known.  This  must  have  been  greatly  owing  to  your  own  neg- 
lect; as  I  cannot  find  that  you  have  any  correspondent  here  but  the 
Secretary  of  the  Society,  or  that  you  have  ever  gone  farther  with 
him  than  to  give,  at  proper  periods,  the  necessary  information  con- 
cerning your  Mission,  You  have  suffered  greatly  by  this  neglect, 
as  perhaps  I  may  explain  to  you  on  some  future  occasion.  It  has 
been  the  unceasing  endeavor  of  Dr.  Cooper  and  myself,  as  well  as  of 
some  others,  to  place  your  worth  and  importance  in  a  proper  light.  I 
co-operated  with  Dr.  Cooper,  and  was  to  the  full  as  instrumental  as 
he,  in  procuring  for  you  the  Chaplaincy  of  the  Man  of  War,  v.^hich  I 
have  over  and  over  insisted  upon  as  a  reward  far  inadequate  to  your 
merit.  In  what  follows  I  claim  a  far  greater  share  than  Cooper,  not 
because  he  is  less  your  friend,  but  because  he  has  been  chiefly  at  Ox- 
ford, or  out  of  the  way. 


144  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

that  your  Memorialist  has  said  so  much  of  himself:  but  he 
hopes  that  candour  will  apologize  for  him,  especially  when  it 
is  considered  that  he  is  a  stranger,  unconnected  &  unsupported 
in  this  Country  —  having  nobody  to  solicit  or  speak  for  him ; 
and  no  certain  support  to  depend  upon;  being  now  in  the  de- 
cline of  life  &  having  a  family  of  six  children,  five  of  whom 
still  look  to  him  for  subsistence,  &  with  whom  he  has  been 
obliged  to  leave  almost  all  the  money  he  could  command  for 
their  support;  until  he  could  know  what  was  to  become  of 
himself : 

That  therefore  your  Memorialist  humbly  prays  that  the 
above  mentioned  exertions,  services,  sufferings,  and  profes- 
sional losses  in  the  cause  of  government  may  be  taken  into 
consideration,  and  that  such  compensation  may  be  allowed  to 
him  as  his  case  shall  be  found  to  deserve. 

No.  393  Oxford  street 
Oct.  20.  1783." 

With  this  copy  of  his  Memorial  which  Dr.  Seabury  pre- 

"  After  much  pains  taken  in  soliciting  for  a  public  subscription  to 
relieve  the  American  Clergy,  who  are  suffering  for  their  loyalty,  I 
succeeded  in  the  scheme,  which  was  originally  mine,  but  readily 
adopted  by  many  others.  A  subscription  at  length  was  brought  for- 
ward under  the  patronage  of  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  with  the 
approbation  of  his  Majesty,  and  upwards  of  £4,000  has  been  raised 
by  it.  It  was  the  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  London  that  those  who 
had  been  assisted  with  Chaplaincies,  &c.,  were  not  entitled  to  shares 
in  the  distribution  of  this  money.  I  allowed  that  the  observation 
might  hold  in  general,  but  insisted,  over  and  over,  upon  some  excep- 
tions, when  I  always  instanced  in  You.  On  Saturday  last  the  Bishops 
met  to  make  distribution  of  part  of  the  money,  when  I  was  desired 
to  attend  their  Lordships;  Cooper  again  was  out  of  the  way.  No 
Clergyman  but  Cooke  was  with  me.  As  this  was  the  first  distribution 
it  was  agreed,  in  the  first  place,  that  no  share  then  granted,  should 
exceed  £50.  In  this  business  afterwards  my  recommendation  was  the 
sole    direction   of   their    Lordships.     On    my    recommending    You,   in 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  145 

served  for  his  own  use,  were  preserved  also  copies  in  his  own 
handwriting  of  the  certificates  given  by  Drs.  Cooper  and 
Chandler  as  to  his  authorship  of  the  Farmer  pamphlets  to 
which  he  had  referred  in  substantiation  of  his  statements. 
Dr.  Cooper  certifies  (September  29,  1783)  that  Dr.  Seabury 
''  did,  from  the  beginning  of  the  Rebellion,  exert  himself  in 
favour  of  the  British  Government,  in  the  most  open  and 
avowed  manner,  more  particularly  by  writing  several  pam- 
phlets under  the  signature  of  A.  W.  Farmer,  calculated  to  do 
the  most  essential  service  to  his  King  and  this  Country;"  and 
Dr.  Chandler  certifies  (October  31,  1783),  "I  have  been  in- 
tim^ately  acquainted  with  the  said  Dr.  Seabury,  from  the  time 
of  his  first  settling  in  New  Brunswick  in  1754,  and  that  I  know 
him  to  have  always  been,  and  to  be,  inflexibly  attached  to  his 
Majesty's  person  &  government,  and  to  our  excellent  Constitu- 
tion both  in  Church  &  State.  I  do  also  certify,  that  he  wrote 
all  the  pieces  and  pamphlets  of  which  in  his  Memorial  he 
claims  to  have  been  the  author  —  that  he  was  associated  with 
Dr.  Inglis  and  me,  for  the  purposes  he  mentions  —  and  that 
he  was  an  able  and  active  assistant,  always  willing  to  take  his 
full  share  in  the  combat  with  those  dangerous  &  false  princi- 
ples, as  well  as  assertions,  which,  for  several  years  before  the 
breaking  out  of  the  late  rebellion,  were  zealously  propagated 
in  the  colonies ;  on  which  account  he  was  particularly  obnox- 
ious to  those,  who  were  disaffected  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment." 

proper  terms,  £50  was  readily  granted  you;  and  when  I  observed 
upon  it  that  your  title  still  held  good  for  more,  no  one  objected  to 
it;  so  that  I  doubt  not  I  shall  be  able  to  get  you  another  £50  in  due 
season.  I  have  obtained  £50  for  Babcock,  the  same  sum  for  poor 
Avery,  for  Beardsley,  for  Dibblee,  for  old  Mr.  Beach,  Sayre,  Mans- 
field, Hubbard,  Scovil,  Rich:  Clarke,  Andrews,  Tyler,  Fogg,  Jarvis, 
Townsend,  Bostwick,  &c. ;  and  £40  each,  for  Mr.  Browne  of  Newark, 
Ab:  Beach,  Panton,  Frazer,  Ogden,  &c:— " 


146  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

One  can  hardly  fail,  I  think,  from  the  consideration  of  the 
foregoing  memorial  to  gain  a  good  general  knowledge  of  the 
experience  which  Dr.  Seabury  had  undergone  in  the  period 
before  the  War,  and  a  sufficiently  clear  insight  into  his  char- 
acter and  circumstances  during  that  time.  Very  little  further 
perhaps  need  be  added  as  to  this  part  of  the  story ;  and  with  a 
brief  reference  to  certain  particulars  we  may  conclude  the 
present  chapter,  and  pass  in  the  next  to  some  consideration  of 
the  political  papers  which  were  so  important  a  part  of  his  life, 
and  the  results  of  which  upon  his  career  were  so  notable. 

Among  his  letters  to  the  Society  about  this  period  there 
is  one  dated  December  29,  1776,  cited  by  Dr.  Beardsley,^  which 
gives  an  account  of  some  matters  referred  to  in  the  Memorial 
of  later  years,  and,  as  was  natural,  with  somewhat  greater  par- 
ticularity; and  gives  also  the  history  of  the  termination  of  his 
active  connection  with  St.  Peter's  Church,  which  I  believe  ap- 
pears nowhere  else,  and  for  these  reasons  it  may  be  useful  to 
quote  part  of  that  letter  here. 

Referring  to  the  Farmer  Pamphlets,  he  says :  "  These  were 
attributed  to  me,  and  were  the  principal  reason  of  my  being 
carried  into  Connecticut  last  year.  If  I  would  have  disavowed 
these  publications  I  should  have  been  set  at  liberty  in  a  few 
days ;  but  as  I  refused  to  declare  whether  I  were,  or  were  not, 
the  author,  they  kept  me  till  they  sent  to  New  York  and  New 
London,  and  wherever  they  could  hear  of  a  journeyman  printer 
who  had  wrought  for  Mr.  Rivington  at  the  time  when  these 
pamphlets  were  published,  and  had  them  examined;  but  find- 
ing no  sufficient  proof,  upon  my  putting  in  a  Memorial  to  the 
General  Assembly  at  Connecticut,  the  gang  who  took  me 
prisoner  thought  proper  to  withdraw  their  guard  and  let  me 
return.  I  continued  tolerably  quiet  at  home  for  a  few  weeks, 
till  after  the  King's  troops  evacuated  Boston,  when,  the  rebel 

8.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  45. 


POLITICAL    EXPERIENCES.  147 

army  passing  from  thence  to  New  York,  bodies  of  them,  con- 
sisting of  twenty  or  thirty  men,  would,  every  day  or  two, 
sometimes  two  or  three  times  a  day,  come  through  West 
Chester,  though  five  miles  out  of  their  way,  and  never  failed  to 
stop  at  my  house,  I  believe  only  for  the  malicious  pleasure  of 
insulting  me  by  reviling  the  King,  the  Parliament,  Lord 
North,  the  Church,  the  bishops,  the  clergy,  and  the  Society, 
and,  above  all,  that  vilest  of  all  miscreants,  A.  W.  Farmer. 
One  would  give  one  hundred  dollars  to  know  who  he  was, 
that  he  might  plunge  his  bayonet  into  his  heart;  Another 
would  crawl  fifty  miles  to  see  him  roasted;  but,  happily  for 
the  Farmer  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  any  person  in  America 
to  expose  him.  This  continued  about  a  month.  Matters  then 
became  pretty  quiet,  till  they  got  intelligence  that  General 
Howe  was  coming  to  New  York.  Independency  was  then 
declared  by  the  grand  Congress  at  Philadelphia ;  and  the  petty 
Congress  at  New  York  published  an  edict,  making  it  death  to 
aid,  abet,  support,  assist,  or  comfort  the  king,  or  any  of  his 
forces,  servants,  or  friends.  Till  this  time  I  had  kept  the 
Church  open.  About  fifty  armed  men  were  now  sent  into  my 
neighbourhood. 

I  was  now  in  a  critical  situation.  If  I  prayed  for  the  King 
the  least  I  could  expect  was  to  be  sent  into  New  England; 
probably  something  worse,  as  no  clergyman  on  the  continent 
was  so  obnoxious  to  them.  If  I  went  to  church  and  omitted 
praying  for  the  king,  it  would  not  only  be  a  breach  of  my 
duty,  but  in  some  degree  countenancing  their  rebellion,  and 
supporting  that  independency  which  they  had  declared.  As 
the  least  culpable  course  I  determined  not  to  go  to  church,  and 
ordered  the  sexton,  on  Sunday  morning  to  tell  any  person  who 
should  inquire,  that  till  I  could  pray  for  the  king,  and  do  my 
duty  according  to  the  rubric  and  canons,  there  would  be 
neither  prayers  nor  sermons.  About  half  a  dozen  of  my  par- 
ishioners and  a  dozen  rebel  soldiers  came  to  the  church.     The 


148  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

rest  of  the  people  in  a  general  way,  declared  that  they  would 
not  go  to  church  till  their  minister  was  at  Hberty  to  pray  for 
the  king." 

With  regard  to  the  nature  of  his  influence  among  his  own 
people  and  neighbours,  and  their  respect  for  him,  it  is  inter- 
esting to  note  what  he  says  in  another  letter.  *'  I  must  ob- 
serve that  but  few  of  my  congregation  are  engaged  in  the 
rebellion.  The  New  England  rebels  used  frequently  to  ob- 
serve as  an  argument  against  me,  that  the  nearer  they  came  to 
West  Chester  the  fewer  friends  they  found  to  American  lib- 
erty,—  that  is  to  rebellion;  and,  in  justice  to  the  rebels  of 
East  and  West  Chester,  I  must  say  that  none  of  them  ever 
offered  me  any  insult  or  attempted  to  do  me  any  injury  that  I. 
know  of."  ^ 

In  the  autumn  of  1777,  being  then  within  the  British  lines  in 
New  York,  and  serving  the  Provincial  Hospital  as  Chaplain 
under  the  appointment  of  Sir  William  Howe,  he  appears  to 
have  meditated  a  return  to  his  Parish,  but  on  visiting  it  found 
it  unsafe  to  remain,  and  then  petitioned  the  Society  for  leave 
to  remove  to  Staten  Island ;  and  the  Society  consenting,  prom- 
ised the  continuance  of  his  stipend  of  £50  as  missionary  till  the 
existing  disturbances  should  cease.^^  He  did  not,  however, 
find  it  practicable  to  reside  on  Staten  Island ;  though,  residing 
in  New  York,  he  continued  to  serve  the  mission  there  until  the 
conclusion  of  the  War.  We  find  him  then  during  his  settle- 
ment in  New  York,  engaged  in  the  discharge  of  his  Ministry 
in  three  capacities;  as  Missionary  at  Staten  Island,  as  Chap- 
lain to  the  Provincial  Hospital,  and,  after  1778,  Chaplain  to 
the  King's  American  Regiment.  What  his  income  was  from 
the  Hospital  Chaplaincy  I  do  not  know.  From  the  other 
Chaplaincy  and  from  the  Society  he  derived  £150  a  year;  and 
in  order  to  the  better  support  of  his  family  he  engaged  also  in 

9.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  49. 
10.  Ibid.,  p.  53. 


POLITICAL   EXPERIENCES.  149 

the  practice  of  medicine  in  New  York,  as  he  had  done  from 
time  to  time  elsewhere  ever  since  his  study  in  Edinburgh, 
which  has  been  noted. 

His  only  publications  during  this  period  appear  to  have 
been  a  sermon  preached  in  his  capacity  as  Regimental  Chap- 
lain in  1779,  from  the  text  "  Fear  God,  Honour  the  King," 
before  Governor  Tryon,  at  whose  request  it  was  published; 
and  a  sermon  preached  before  the  Grand  and  other  Lodges  of 
Free-Masons,  of  which  Fraternity  he  was  a  member,  at  St. 
Paul's  Chapel,  New  York,  on  the  Anniversary  of  St.  John  the 
Evangelist  1782,  printed  in  1783. 


CHAPTER  XL 

A  WESTCHESTER  FARMER. 

1774. 

IT  is  one  of  the  inconveniences  of  writing  under  an  as- 
sumed name,  that  in  course  of  time  it  often  becomes 
impossible  to  determine  the  authorship  of  matter  pro- 
duced. The  fashion  of  thus  writing  has  been  largely  followed, 
and  in  the  period  with  which  we  are  concerned  was  extensively 
prevalent;  and  of  course  it  is  a  fashion  which  sometimes  has 
great  advantages.  Besides  the  consideration  of  prudence, 
which  in  times  of  unusual  public  excitement  is  important, 
there  is  something  in  the  very  impersonality  of  a  writer  which 
gives  him  a  certain  additional  influence.  To  nothing  else,  very 
often,  can  one  attribute  the  unquestioning  acceptance  of  Edi- 
torial matter  in  the  overflowing  current  of  newspapers  and 
magazines  which  he  encounters  in  his  daily  life.  Certainly 
such  matter  in  most  cases  derives  its  influence  not  so  much 
from  its  intrinsic  merit,  as  from  its  awe  inspiring  association 
with  a  power  which  because  it  is  invisible  is  assumed  to  possess 
pretty  much  all  the  other  attributes  of  Deity:  insomuch  that 
the  average  man  finds  it  much  easier  to  question  the  authority 
of  his  Bible,  than  to  doubt  the  infallibility  of  the  Editor  of  his 
daily  paper.  The  fact  is  that  the  moment  a  man  speaks  in  his 
own  name,  he  loses  all  claim  to  influence  other  than  that  which 
comes  from  the  weight  of  his  own  merit  —  and  most  of  us, 
unhappily,  hardly  find  that  a  sufficient  dependence. 

150 


A    WESTCHESTER    FARMER.  IS^ 

Whether  such  a  consciousness  suffused  the  mind  of  that 
multiform  personality,  Timothy  Tickle  Esq^.,  who  has  been 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  pages,  one  cannot  determine.  In 
fact  the  association  of  various  writers  under  that  name  did 
give  to  their  various  productions  a  sort  of  Editorial  sanction 
which  comported  well  with  the  title  of  the  periodical  called 
"  A  Whip  for  the  American  Whig,"  designed  to  correct  the 
errors  of  the  paper  so  named,  which  also  was  itself  energized 
by  a  combination  of  unknown  writers.  These  papers  were,  on 
both  sides,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  contributed  to  certain 
Journals  of  the  day,  and  though  a  reference  to  the  files  of 
those  Journals  might  reveal  the  sentiments  of  the  contributors 
during  the  period  covered  by  them  there  would  be  nothing  to 
determine  their  personal  authorship;  so  that  as  to  all  this 
phase  of  the  political  experience  of  the  New  Brunswick  Mis- 
sionary and  the  Jamaica  or  West  Chester  Rector  there  seems 
to  be  nothing  to  identify  him  with  any  particular  paper, 
whether  before  or  after  the  birth  of  the  "  Whip  for  the  Amer- 
ican Whig."  Probably,  even  were  the  case  otherwise,  it  would 
hardly  be  worth  while  to  give  to  these  papers  any  particular 
consideration;  since  notwithstanding  the  interest  which  they 
were  doubtless  capable  of  inspiring  at  the  time,  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  they  related  chiefly  to  anticipations  of  the 
probable  effects  of  measures,  so  long  since  abandoned  or  ac- 
complished that  it  is  matter  of  very  little  moment  what  men 
felt  in  the  apprehension  of  them. 

With  regard  to  the  Farmer  pamphlets  the  case  seems  to  be 
somewhat  different ;  partly  because  they  were  more  deliberate 
and  studied  productions ;  and  partly  because  they  are  devoted 
to  a  considerable  extent  to  the  discussion  rather  of  principles 
than  of  mere  measures.  And  the  fact  that  they  aroused  so 
very  much  interest  as  they  did  at  the  time,  and  as  they  have 
ever  since  inspired  among  those  who  have  known  something 
of  their  history,  if  not  of  their  contents,  seems  to  make  some 


152  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

account  of  them  not  only  desirable  but  necessary  in  the  present 
undertaking. 

The  first  of  these  pamphlets,  entitled  "  Free  thoughts  on 
the  Proceedings  of  the  continental  Congress,  held  at  Philadel- 
phia, Sept.  5.  1774,"  and  printed  in  that  year,  is  marked  on 
the  title  page  as  "  By  a  Farmer."  The  other  two,  viz.  "  The 
Congress  Canvassed,  or  an  Examination  into  the  conduct  of 
the  Delegates  at  their  Grand  Convention,  held  in  Philadelphia, 
Sept.  I.  1774,  Addressed  to  the  Merchants  of  New  York," 
and  "  A  View  of  the  controversy  between  Great  Britain  and 
her  colonies,"  were  marked  as  "  By  A.  W.  Farmer."  The 
nom  de  plume  of  a  Farmer  is  said  to  have  been  used  by  Mr. 
Dickinson,  perhaps  it  was  by  others;  and  possibly  the  subse- 
quent thought  of  this  may  have  induced  the  writer  of  the 
present  series  to  make  his  signature  in  the  second  and  third 
papers  more  specific  than  that  of  the  first,  and  to  add  the 
initial  W  —  indicating  West  Chester,  so  as  to  distinguish  his 
papers  from  those  of  others.  At  any  rate  the  difference  ex- 
ists. 

The  first  of  these  pamphlets,  the  "  Free  thoughts,"  elicited 
a  reply  entitled  "  A  Full  Vindication  of  the  Measures  of  the 
Congress,"  and  signed,  "  A  Friend  to  America,"  by  the  then 
youthful  collegian,  Alexander  Hamilton;^  which  the  Farmer 
appears  to  have  seen  after  he  had  finished  his  second  pamphlet 
"  The  Congress  Canvassed  "  but  before  it  was  issued ;  as  he 
adds  to  it  a  note,  dated  December  16,  1774,  saying  that  he  has 
seen  the  ''  Full  Vindication "  by  "  A  Friend  to  America,"  in 
answer  to  the  **  Free  Thoughts,"  and  that  if  its  author  has 
any  teeth  left  he  may  find  here  another  file  at  his  service,  and 
promising  a  reply  to  his  answer  within  ten  days ;  a  promise  ful- 
filled with  somewhat  more  than  punctuality  by  the  appearance 
of  the  third  pamphlet,  "  A  View  of  the  controversy,"  dated 

I.  Shea's  Life  and  Epoch  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  pp.  253-258. 


A   WESTCHESTER   FARMER.  153 

December  24,  1774.  To  this  Hamilton  rejoined  in  a  pam- 
phlet entitled  the  Farmer  refuted,  marked  as  of  1775,  but  with 
no  more  specific  date,  which  closed  the  series.  Between  Jan- 
uary and  April  of  1775,  the  Farmer  appears  to  have  been 
busily  engaged  in  the  effort  to  influence  the  action  of  the 
Colonial  Assembly  of  New  York  which  in  that  period  was 
holding  its  last  session;  and  after  the  resort  to  arms  in  the 
battle  of  Lexington  the  war  of  pamphlets  was  no  longer  to 
any  purpose.  Had  it  even  been  so,  the  popular  rage  against 
the  Farmer  prevented  his  regular  residence  at  home  during 
the  summer  of  that  year,  and  in  the  following  November  he 
was  kidnapped  by  Sears,  who  also  sacked  the  printing  house 
of  Rivington,  from  which  both  sides  of  the  series  had  been 
issued:  and  thus  (in  very  literal  sense  so  far  as  type  was  con- 
cerned), destroyed  the  fount  of  the  controversy. 

These  pamphlets  of  the  Farmer  comprise  together  nearly 
one  hundred  closely  printed  octavo  pages ;  and  the  pamphlets 
of  Hamilton  on  the  other  side,  about  as  many  more.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  give  a  just  idea  of  the  controversy  without  re- 
printing them,  which  would  be  too  much  of  a  digression ;  and 
any  really  satisfactory  analysis  of  them  would  be  tedious  as 
well  as  digressive,  since  they  range  over  pretty  much  all  the 
matters  in  dispute  between  the  Mother  Country  and  the  Col- 
onies ;  and  our  object  is  not  so  much  to  enlarge  upon  that  dis- 
pute, as  it  is  to  show  how  the  Farmer  stood  towards  it;  and, 
as  illustrative  of  his  personal  qualities,  to  show  how  he  han- 
dled it  in  this  instance.  For  this  purpose  the  following  ex- 
tracts from  his  statements  may  suffice: 

In  the  "  Free  Thoughts,"  he  says  (p.  4)  : 

*'  My  first  business  shall  be  to  point  out  to  you  some  of  the 
consequences  that  will  probably  follow  from  the  Non-Importa- 
tion, Non-Exportation,  and  non-consumption  agreements 
which  they  have  adopted,  and  which  they  have  ordered  to  be 


154  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

enforced  in  the  most  arbitrary  manner,  and  under  the  severest 
penalties." 

This  pamphlet  has  chiefly  in  view  the  practical  questions 
thus  indicated,  which  the  Farmer  argues  at  some  length. 
The  consequences  of  these  measures,  he  says,  may  be  discord, 
leading  to  mobs  and  riots  in  England,  Ireland  and  the  West 
Indies  —  at  least  the  Congress  intended  this  in  some  degree : 
"  They  intend  to  distress  the  manufacturers  in  Great  Britain 
by  depriving  them  of  employment  —  to  distress  the  inhabitants 
of  Ireland  by  depriving  them  of  flax  seed  and  of  a  vent  for 
their  linens  —  to  distress  the  West  India  people  by  withholding 
provisions  and  lumber  from  them,  and  by  stopping  the  market 
for  their  produce.  And  they  hope  by  these  means  to  force  them 
all  to  join  their  clamors  with  ours,  to  get  the  acts  complained  of 
repealed.  This  was  the  undoubted  desire  of  the  Congress 
when  their  agreements  were  framed,  and  this  is  the  avowed 
design  of  their  warm  supporters  and  partisans  in  common 
conversation.  But  where  is  the  justice,  where  is  the  policy 
of  this  procedure?"     (p.  5). 

And  again  (p.  7)  :  "  When  a  trading  people  carelessly  neg- 
lect, or  wilfully  give  up  any  branch  of  their  trade,  it  is  seldom 
in  their  power  to  recover  it.  Should  the  Irish  turn  their  trade 
for  flax  seed  to  Quebec;  and  the  West  Indians  get  their  flour, 
horses,  etc.,  from  thence,  or  other  places ;  the  loss  to  the  farm- 
ers of  this  Province  would  be  immense.  The  last  non-impor- 
tation scheme  turned  the  Indian  trade  from  New  York  down 
the  river  St.  Lawrence ;  we  are  now  repeating,  with  regard  to 
our  flour  and  flax  seed,  the  same  blunder  we  then  committed 
with  regard  to  the  Indian  trade.  The  consequence,  however, 
will  be  much  worse.  The  loss  of  the  Indian  trade  was  a  loss 
to  the  merchants  only ;  but  the  loss  of  the  flax  seed  trade  will 
be  a  loss  to  every  farmer  in  the  Province ;  and  a  loss  which 
he  will  severely  feel." 

(p.   10)     "  But  no  argument  is  like  matter  of  fact.     You 


A    WESTCHESTER    FARMER.  155 

have  had  one  trial  of  a  non-importation  agreement  some  years 
ago.  Pray  how  did  you  Hke  it?  Were  the  prices  of  goods 
raised  on  you  then?  You  know  they  were.  What  remedy 
had  you?  A  good  Christian  remedy,  indeed,  but  a  hard  one 
—  patience  —  and  patience  only.  The  honor  of  the  merchants 
gave  you  no  relief  —  confound  their  honor  —  it  obliged  me  — 
it  obliged  many  of  you,  to  take  old  motheaten  cloths  that  had 
lain  rotting  in  the  shops  for  years,  and  to  pay  a  monstrous 
price  for  them." 

(p.  15)  "  But  it  is  said  that  all  legal  processes  are  to  be 
stopped,  except  in  criminal  cases  —  that  is  to  say,  the  lower 
classes  of  people  are  to  be  deprived  of  their  daily  bread  by 
being  thrown  out  of  employment  by  the  non-exportation  agree- 
ment; to  prevent  starving,  many  of  them  will  be  tempted  to 
steal;  if  they  steal  they  are  to  be  hanged.  The  dishonest  fel- 
low, who  owes  money,  may  by  refusing  payment,  ruin  his 
creditor;  but  there  is  no  remedy,  no  process  is  to  be  issued 
against  him.  This  may  be  justice,  but  it  looks  so  much  like 
cruelty  that  a  man  of  a  humane  heart  would  be  more  apt  to 
call  it  by  the  latter  than  by  the  former  name.  But  pray  by 
whose  authority  are  the  courts  of  justice  to  be  shut  up  in  all 
civil  cases?    Who  shall  dare  to  stop  the  courts  of  justice?" 

P.  16:  ''Rouse  my  friends,  rouse  from  your  stupid  leth- 
argy. Mark  the  men  who  shall  dare  to  impede  the  courts 
of  justice.  Brand  them  as  the  infamous  betrayers  of  the 
rights  of  their  country.  The  grand  security  of  the  property, 
the  liberty,  the  lives  of  Englishmen  consists  in  the  due  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  When  the  courts  are  duly  attended 
to  and  fairly  conducted,  our  property  is  safe.  As  soon  as 
they  are  shut,  everything  is  precarious;  for  neither  property 
nor  liberty  have  any  foundation  to  stand  upon.  Tell  me  not 
of  Delegates,  Congresses,  Committees,  Riots,  Mobs,  Insurrec- 
tions, Associations  —  a  plague  on  them  all.  Give  me  the 
steady,  uniform,  unbiassed  influence  of  the  courts  of  justice. 


156  MEMOIR    OF    lUSIIOP    SEABURY. 

I  have  been  happy  under  their  prelection,  and  I  trust  in  God 
I  shall  be  so  again.'' 

v.  1/ :  ''  Let  us  now  attend  a  little  to  the  non-consumption 
agreement,  which  the  Congress  in  their  association,  have  im- 
posed upon  us.  After  the  first  of  March  we  are  not  to  pur- 
chase or  use  any  East  India  tea  whatsoever;  nor  any  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise  from  Great  Britain  or  Ireland,  im- 
ported after  the  first  day  of  December  next ;  nor  any  molasses, 
syrups,  etc.,  from  the  British  plantations  in  the  West  Indies, 
or  from  Dominica;  nor  wine  from  Madeira,  or  the  Western 
Islands ;  nor  foreign  indigo.  Will  you  submit  to  this  slavish 
regulation  ?  You  must.  Our  sovereign  lords  and  masters,  the 
high  and  mighty  Delegates,  in  Grand  Continental  Congress 
assembled,  have  ordered  and  directed  it.  They  have  directed 
the  Committees  in  the  respective  Colonies  to  establish  such 
further  regulations  as  they  may  think  proper,  for  carrying 
their  association  of  which  this  non-consumption  agreement  is 

a  part,  into  Execution.     Mr.  of  New  York,  under  the 

authority  of  their  high  mightiness,  the  Delegates,  by,  and  with 
the  advice  of  his  Privy  Council,  the  Committee  of  New  York, 
hath  issued  his  mandate,  bearing  date  November  7th  1774, 
recommending  it  to  the  freeholders  and  freemen  to  assemble 
on  the  1 8th  of  November,  to  choose  eight  persons  out  of 
every  ward  to  be  a  committee  to  carry  the  Association  of  the 
Congress  into  execution.  The  business  of  the  Committee  so 
chosen  is  to  be,  to  inspect  the  conduct  of  the  inhabitants,  and 
see  whether  they  violate  the  association.  Among  other  things 
whether  they  drink  any  tea  or  wine  in  their  families,  after  the 
first  of  March;  or  wear  any  British  or  Irish  manufactures,  or 
use  any  English  molasses,  etc. —  If  they  do,  their  names  are 
to  be  published  in  the  Gazette,  that  they  may  be  publicly 
knozvn  and  universally  contemned  as  foes  to  the  Rights  of 
British  America  and  enemies  of  American  liberty.  And  then 
the  parties  of  the  said  Association  will  respectively  break  off 


A    WESTCHESTER    FARMER.  157 

all  dealings  with  him  or  her.  In  plain  English,  they  shall  be 
considered  as  outlaws,  unworthy  of  the  protection  of  civil 
society,  and  delivered  over  to  the  vengeance  of  a  lawless  out- 
rageous mob,  to  be  tarred,  feathered,  hanged,  drawn,  quar- 
tered, and  burnt.     O  rare  American  freedom !  " 

P.  i8:  "Will  you  be  instrumental  in  bringing  the  most 
abject  slavery  upon  yourselves?  Will  you  choose  such  com- 
mittees? Will  you  submit  to  them  should  they  be  chosen  by 
the  weak,  foolish,  turbulent  part  of  the  country  people?  Do 
as  you  please :  but  by  Him  that  made  me,  I  will  not.  No,  if  I 
must  be  enslaved,  let  it  be  by  a  King  at  least,  and  not  by  a 
parcel  of  upstart,  lawless  committee-men.  If  I  must  be  de- 
voured, let  me  be  devoured  by  the  jaws  of  a  lion,  and  not 
gnawed  to  death  by  rats  and  vermin." 

Dr.  Beardsley  is  rather  apologetic  for  this  passage  (as  in- 
deed he  seems  minded  to  be  about  the  whole  political  position 
of  his  subject)  marking  it  as  "  rather  in  the  style  of  a  violent 
partisan  than  of  a  discreet  and  godly  Clergyman."  ^  But  the 
passage,  beside  that  it  is  not  without  rhetorical  merit  as  a 
fair  piece  of  invective,  has  a  positive  historical  value  in  the 
evidence  which  it  indirectly  furnishes  of  the  mode  by  which 
the  public  opinion  of  the  day  was  being  manufactured,  and  of 
the  fact  that  usurped  power  never  brooks  the  opposition  of 
lawful  right.  And  so  far  from  the  language  of  the  Farmer 
being  taken  as  evidence  of  partisanship,  it  ought  rather  to  be 
taken  as  a  manly  assertion  of  the  right  to  liberty  conserved  by 
law,  which  no  citizen  of  the  United  States  should  be  ashamed 
to  echo. 

"  Did  you  choose  your  Supervisors,"  continues  the  Farmer 
(p.  i8),  "  for  the  purpose  of  enslaving  you?  What  right  have 
they  to  fix  up  advertisements  to  call  you  together  for  a  very 
different  purpose  from  that  for  which  they  were  elected  ?     Are 

2.  Beardslcy's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  34. 


158  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

our  Supervisors  our  masters?  And  should  half  a  dozen  fool- 
ish people  meet  together  again  in  consequence  of  their  adver- 
tisements, and  choose  themselves  to  be  a  committee,  as  they 
did  in  many  districts  in  the  affair  of  choosing  Delegates,  are 
we  obliged  to  submit  to  such  a  Committee?  You  ought,  my 
friends,  to  assert  your  ov^n  freedom.  Should  such  another 
attempt  be  made  upon  you,  assemble  yourselves  together;  tell 
your  Supervisor  that  he  has  exceeded  his  commission;  that 
you  will  have  no  such  committees;  that  you  are  Englishmen, 
and  will  maintain  your  rights  and  privileges,  and  will  eat, 
drink,  and  wear  whatever  the  public  laws  of  your  country 
permit,  without  asking  leave  of  any  illegal,  tyrannical  Con- 
gress or  Committee  on  earth. 

But,  however,  as  I  said  before,  do  as  you  please;  if  you 
like  it  better,  choose  your  committee,  or  suffer  it  to  be  chosen 
by  half  a  dozen  fools  in  your  neighborhood  —  open  your  doors 
to  them  —  let  them  examine  your  tea  canisters  and  molasses 
jugs,  and  your  wives'  and  daughters'  petty-coats  —  bow  and 
cringe,  and  tremble,  and  quake  —  fall  down  and  worship  our 
Sovereign  Lord  the  Mob.  But  I  repeat  it,  by  H — n,  I  will 
not.  No,  my  house  is  my  castle;  as  such  I  will  consider  it, 
as  such  I  will  defend  it,  while  I  have  breath.  No  king's 
officer  shall  enter  it  without  my  permission  unless  supported 
by  a  warrant  from  a  magistrate.  And  shall  my  house  be  en- 
tered, and  my  mode  of  living  inquired  into  by  a  domineering 
committee-man?  Before  /  submit,  I  will  die;  live  you,  and  be 
slaves." 

The  Farmer's  antagonist,  in  prophetic  sympathy  with  his 
biographer  of  the  next  century,  is  pained  by  his  indulgence 
in  "  strong  language :"  and  it  is  amusing  to  observe  the 
Farmer's  retort,  in  his  "  View  of  the  controversy,"  etc.,  (p. 

34): 

"  You  give  me  a  hint  about  swearing.  I  have  profited  by 
it,  and  intend  never  to  swear  more.     I  wish  you  would  take  a 


A   WESTCHESTER    FARMER.  1 59 

hint  about  fibbing.  It  is  rather  a  meaner  quaHty  than  that  of 
rapping  out  a  little  now  and  then. 

P.  33.     Almost  every  paragraph  contains  half  a  dozen  fibs. 
Let  me  try  the  first,  as  it  is  most  handy.     You  say  that  you 

*  love  to  speak  the  truth/  one;  that  you  '  scorn  to  prejudice 
the  farmers  in  favor  of  what  you  have  to  say/  two;  '  by  taking 
upon  you  a  fictitious  character/  three;  for  you  subscribe 
yourself  a  friend  to  America;  that  I   am   not  in   reality   a 

*  farmer/  four;  but  *  some  ministerial  emissary/  five;  *  that  has 
assumed  the  name  to  deceive/  six;  the  very  next  words  con- 
tain another;  but  I  will  stop,  or  I  shall  betray  my  inability  to 
enumerate  more  than  nine  fingers." 

P.  34 :  "  Your  next  attempt  is  upon  the  imaginations  of 
the  farmers.  You  endeavor  to  fright  them  from  obeying  the 
Parliament,  by  representing  to  them  the  danger  of  having 
taxes  laid  upon  their  tables,  and  chairs,  and  platters,  and 
dishes,  and  knives,  and  forks,  and  everything  else  —  and 
"  even  every  kiss  their  daughters  received  from  their  sweet- 
hearts," and  that  you  say,  would  soon  ruin  them.  No  reflec- 
tions, Sir,  upon  farmer's  daughters;     .     .     . 

But  I  have  a  scheme  worth  all  this  table,  and  chair,  and 
kiss  taxing.  I  thought  of  it  last  night,  and  I  have  a  violent 
inclination  to  write  to  Lord  North  about  it  by  the  very  next 
packet.  It  pleases  me  hugely,  and  I  think  must  please  his 
Lordship,  as  it  would  infallibly  enable  him  to  pay  the  annual 
interest  of  the  national  debt,  and  I  believe  to  sink  principal 
and  all  in  fourteen  years.  It  is  no  more  than  a  moderate 
tax  of  fourpence  a  hundred  upon  all  the  fibs,  falsehoods,  and 
misrepresentations  of  you  and  your  party,  in  England  and 
America." 

But,  more  seriously,  the  greater  part  of  the  "  Free 
Thoughts,"  as  has  been  noted,  consists  of  a  consideration  of 
the  probable  consequences  of  the  measures  of  Congress,  as  to 
which  there  was  certainly  room  for  a  fair  difference  of  opin- 


l6o  MEMOIR    OF    r.ISIIOr    SKABURY. 

ion;  with  briefer  reference  to  the  questions  of  principle  at 
stake  in  the  controversy.  "  The  Congress  Canvassed,"  ad- 
dressed to  the  Merchants  of  New  York;  and  the  "  View  of  the 
Controversy  "  addressed  to  the  "  Friend  to  America,"  who 
had  answered  the  "  Free  thoughts,"  discuss,  for  the  most  part, 
questions  of  principle  more  fully,  and  are  written  on  the 
whole  in  more  careful  style  and  vvdth  graver  tone.  But 
throughout  them  all  the  object  is  manifestly  the  defence  of  a 
Constitutional  system,  and  not  partisanship  for  the  king,  min- 
istry, or  even  Parliament. 

As  to  the  question,  for  example,  which  has  been  already 
suggested,  whether  the  Congress  were  truly  representative  of 
the  people,  or  owed  their  apparently  representative  character 
in  considerable  measure  to  the  skilful  manipulation  of  over- 
whelming minorities,  the  Farmer  observes  in  "  The  Congress 
Canvassed,"  (p.  8)  : 

"  Even  in  this  province  many  undue  and  unfair  advantages 
were  taken. —  You  had  no  right  to  dictate  to  the  counties  in 
what  manner  they  should  proceed.  You  had  no  right  to  sup- 
pose that  those  districts  or  those  people  who  did  not  assemble 
were  in  your  favor.  The  contrary  ought  to  have  been  sup- 
posed and  you  ought  to  have  considered  those  people  and 
districts  who  did  not  assemble  as  not  choosing  to  have  any 
Delegates  in  Congress  at  all.  The  people  of  your  city  can 
easily  assemble;  they  have  but  a  short  walk  to  the  City  Hall 
or  coffee-house.  But  is  not  so  easy  to  assemble  the  people  of 
a  country  district.  Besides,  it  is  well  known  by  all  those 
who  know  anything  of  human  nature,  that  those  people  who 
are  fond  of  innovations  in  government,  and  of  rendering 
themselves  conspicuous  in  their  neighbourhood,  would  be  most 
likely  to  assemble  on  such  an  occasion.  And  so  it  accord- 
ingly happened ;  for  it  is  notorious  that  in  some  districts  only 
three  or  four  met  and  chose  themselves  to  be  a  committee  on 
this   most    important    occasion.     So    that   taking   the    whole 


A    WESTCHESTER    FARMER.  l6l 

Province  together,  I  am  confident  your  delegates  had  not  the 
voice  of  an  hundredth  part  of  the  people  in  their  favor.  You 
may  say  that  the  people  might  have  assembled;  and  if  they 
did  not  their  silence  was  to  be  taken  for  their  consent.  Not 
so  fast,  gentlemen.  That  they  might  have  assembled,  I  know, 
but  had  your  committee,  or  their  own  Supervisors,  any  right 
to  call  them  together?  Were  they  under  any  obligations  to 
obey  such  notifications  as  a  Supervisor's  advertisement 
founded  on  the  authority  of  a  New  York  Committee?  You 
know  they  were  not,  and  because  they  did  not  choose  to  obey 
it,  must  their  rights  and  privileges  be  given  up  to  be  torn  and 
mangled  and  trampled  on  by  an  enthusiastic  Congress  ?  " 

And  further,  in  anticipation  of  the  argument  that  "  the 
Delegates  from  several  of  the  governments  were  appointed 
by  their  Assemblies;  by  the  true  and  legal  representatives  of 
the  people ;  and  therefore  were  the  true  and  legal  Delegates  of 
the  people :" 

(P.  lo)  "  Nor  is  it  clear  to  me  that  the  Legislature  of  any 
province  have  a  power  of  appointing  Delegates  to  such  a 
Congress  as  lately  met  at  Philadelphia.  I  am  certain  no 
provincial  legislature  can  give  them  such  powers  as  were 
lately  exercised  at  Philadelphia.  The  legislative  authority  of 
any  province  cannot  extend  further  than  the  province  extends. 
None  of  its  acts  are  binding  one  inch  beyond  its  limits.  How 
then  can  it  give  authority  to  a  few  persons,  to  meet  other 
persons,  from  other  provinces,  to  make  rules  and  laws  for 
the  whole  continent  ?  ^     In  such  a  case  the  Carolinas,  Virginia, 

3.  Observe  that  the  Farmer  objects  not  to  the  right  of  representa- 
tives of  one  province  to  agree  with  representatives  of  other  provinces 
upon  measures  which  should  have  the  force  of  law  for  all  associated 
in  the  common  agreement  —  which  is  the  Federal  idea  that  later 
produced  the  United  States  Constitution:  but  that  his  objection  is  to 
the  right  of  any  number  of  provincial  representatives  to  agree  together 
in  the  imposition  of  laws  to  be  binding  on  such  provinces  as  were  not 
included  in  that  agreement  —  which  is  quite  a  different  proposition. 


l62  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Maryland,  and  the  four  New  England  States,  might  make 
laws  to  bind  Philadelphia,  New  Jersey,  and  New  York;  that 
is  —  they  might  make  laws  whose  operation  should  extend 
further  than  the  authority  by  which  they  were  enacted  —  ex- 
tended. Before  such  a  mode  of  legislation  can  take  place,  the 
Constitution  of  our  Colonies  must  be  subverted,  and  their 
present  independency  on  each  other  must  be  annihilated." 

And  then  as  to  the  catchword  of  the  day,  '*  No  taxation 
without  representation :" 

(P.  i8)  :  "  But  what  right  had  the  Congress  to  give  what 
did  not  belong  to  them  ?  To  give  your  money  .  .  .  with- 
out your  consent?  But  I  forget  myself  —  they  first  pro- 
claimed themselves  your  representatives,  and  then  of  course 
they  had  an  undoubted,  legal,  constitutional  right  to  all  your 
substance.  For  you  know,  gentlemen,  that  representation  and 
taxation  go  together.  God  and  Nature  hath  joined  them. 
But  how,  on  this  principle  you  can  keep  your  money  out  of 
the  harpy  claws  of  the  Congress,  I  cannot  conceive.  .  .  . 
I  know  not  how  you  will  help  yourselves,  unless  you  have 
prudence  enough  to  recur  to  the  first  principles  of  govern- 
ment :  And  then  you  will  find  that  legislation  and  taxation  go 
together;  and  that  no  government  ever  yet  had  a  being  where 
they  were  divided." 

The  point  here  touched  the  Farmer  refers  to  again  in  his 
reply  to  his  adversary  in  the  "  View  of  the  Controversy :" 

(P.  lo)  "The  position  that  we  are  bound  by  no  laws  to 
which  we  have  not  consented  either  by  ourselves,  or  our  rep- 
resentatives, is  a  novel  position,  unsupported  by  any  authori- 
tative record  of  the  British  Constitution,  ancient  or  modern. 
It  is  republican  in  its  very  nature,  and  tends  to  the  utter 
subversion  of  the  English  Monarchy. 

This  position  has  arisen  from  an  artful  change  of  terms. 
To  say  that  an  Englishman  is  not  bound  by  any  laws  but 
those  to  which  the  representatives  of  the  nation  have  given 


A   WESTCHESTER   FARMER.  163 

their  consent,  is  to  say  what  is  true;  but  to  say  that  an  Eng- 
lishman is  bound  by  no  laws  but  those  to  which  he  hath  con- 
sented in  person,  or  by  his  representatives,  is  saying  what 
never  was  true,  and  never  can  be  true.  A  great  part  of  the 
people  of  England  have  no  vote  in  the  choice  of  representa- 
tives, and  therefore  are  governed  by  laws  to  which  they  never 
consented  either  by  themselves  or  by  their  representatives." 

It  is  a  curious  commentary  on  the  natural  difficulty  of  seeing 
ourselves  as  others  see  us,  and  the  common  propensity  to  dis- 
cover the  entire  rectitude  in  ourselves  of  some  course  which 
we  have  considered  extremely  wrong  in  others,  that  in  the 
very  fore  front  of  the  United  States  Constitution  (Art.  I.  Sec. 
2)  the  proviso  was  inserted  excluding  from  the  number  of 
those  who  were  in  theory  represented,  two-fifths  of  a  certain 
class  of  persons ;  while  the  whole  of  that  class  of  persons  (i.  e., 
the  slaves),  and  many  other  persons  besides  (i.  e.,  all  the 
women),  were,  in  practice,  obliged  to  obey  laws  to  which 
they  never  assented  either  in  person  or  by  representatives  of 
their  own  choice:  and  though  the  slaves  be  gone,  and  the 
women  may  by  and  by  acquire  the  right  to  vote,  there  will 
still  always  be  the  alien  who  is  governed  without  his  own 
consent  until  he  is  naturalized  —  unless  he  be  previously  de- 
ported for  objectionable  sentiments,  or  excluded  for  the  benefit 
of  the  labor  market  —  and  thus  the  position  will  remain  true 
in  this  Country  as  in  England,  that  many  are  governed  with- 
out their  consent,  either  personally  or  representatively :  not  to 
speak  of  the  right  of  the  States  to  prescribe  the  qualifications 
of  electors, —  whereby  the  tinge  of  a  man's  colour,  or  the 
inability  of  his  grandfather  to  read,  may  arbitrarily  reduce 
him  to  the  position  of  being  governed  without  being  repre- 
sented. And  with  reference  to  the  application  of  his  prin- 
ciple of  legislation  and  taxation  going  together,  instead  of 
representation  and  taxation,  the  Farmer  holds  language,  which 
states   doctrine    applied   by   the    Government   of   the    United 


164  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Stales  on  exactly  the  same  foundation  of  reason  as  that  by 
which  he  justified  the  government  of  the  Colonies  by  Eng- 
land.    In  the  "  View  of  the  Controversy,"  he  says : 

(P.  9)  *'To  suppose  a  part  of  the  British  dominions  which 
is  not  subject  to  the  power  of  the  British  Legislature,  is  no 
better  sense  than  to  suppose  a  country  at  one  and  the  same 
time  to  be  and  not  to  be  a  part  of  the  British  dominions.  If 
therefore  the  colony  of  New  York  be  a  part  of  the  British 
dominions,  the  colony  of  New  York  is  subject,  and  dependent 
on  the  supreme  legislative  authority  of  Great  Britain.  Legis- 
lation is  not  an  inherent  right  in  the  Colonies.  Many  Colonies 
have  been  established  and  subsisted  long  without  it.  The 
Roman  Colonies  had  no  legislative  authority.  It  was  not  till 
the  later  period  of  the  Republic  that  the  privileges  of  Roman 
citizens,  among  which  that  of  voting  in  the  assemblies  of  the 
people  at  Rome  was  a  principal  one,  were  extended  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Italy.  All  the  laws  of  the  Empire  were  en- 
acted at  Rome.  Neither  their  colonies  nor  conquered  coun- 
tries had  anything  to  do  with  legislation." 

Compare  Chancellor  Kent  (Comm.,  L,  384  n.)  : 

"  The  Government  of  the  United  States,  which  can  law- 
fully acquire  territory  by  conquest  or  treaty,  must,  as  an 
inevitable  consequence,  possess  the  power  to  govern  it.  The 
Territories  must  be  under  the  dominion  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
Union,  or  be  without  any  government;  for  the  Territories  do 
not,  when  acquired,  become  entitled  to  self-government,  and 
they  are  not  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  any  State.  They 
fall  under  the  power  given  to  Congress  by  the  Constitution." 

And  Chief  Justice  Marshall  (quoted  by  Kent,  p.  385)  re- 
marking upon  the  then  distant  prospect  of  the  settlement  of 
the  country  belonging  to  the  United  States  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  says : 

"  It  would  be  a  long  time  before  it  would  be  populous 
enough  to  be  created  into  one  or  more  independent  States; 


A    WESTCHESTER    FARMER.  165 

and  in  the  meantime  upon  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  acts  of 
Congress,  and  even  by  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  colonists  would  be  in  a  state  of  the  most  complete 
subordination,  and  as  dependent  upon  the  will  of  Congress  as 
the  people  of  this  country  would  have  been  upon  the  King  and 
Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  if  they  could  have  sustained  their 
claim  to  bind  us  in  all  cases  whatsoever." 

If  we  substitute  the  Union  and  Congress  for  the  King  and 
Parliament,  we  may  easily  suppose  the  Farmer  to  have  been 
as  good  an  American  (at  least  in  respect  to  the  Hamiltonized 
aspects  of  the  American  system)  as  Hamilton  himself  was. 
In  fact,  if  they  were  not  both  disposed  to  take  much  the  same 
view  of  Government,  in  general,  as  in  some  respects  it  would 
appear  that  they  were;  they  certainly  (at  that  time),  were 
chiefly  dominated  by  the  one  ruling  idea  of  the  preservation 
of  the  integrity  of  the  British  Empire.  They  differed  (very 
plentifully)  as  to  methods  to  be  adopted  for  the  desired  end, 
and  as  to  the  principles  which  those  methods  involved,  but 
they  seem  at  heart  to  have  been  agreed  as  to  this  idea;  for 
Hamilton  does  not  yet  appear  to  regard  separation  as  the  nec- 
essary consequence  of  independence;  and  the  Farmer  points 
out  the  possibility  of  preserving  the  independent  constitutional 
right  of  the  self-government  of  the  Colonies  in  matters  per- 
taining to  their  own  individual  interests ;  while  at  the  same 
time  their  rights  and  interests  as  a  whole,  in  their  inter- 
dependent relations  with  each  other,  might  be  under  the  care 
of  the  common  government  of  Great  Britain.  In  the  "  View 
of  the  Controversy,"  he  says : 

P.  21 :  "I  imagine  that  if  all  internal  taxation  be  vested 
in  our  own  legislatures,  and  the  right  of  regulating  trade  by 
duties,  bounties,  etc.,  be  left  in  the  power  of  Parliament,  and 
also  the  right  of  enacting  all  general  laws  for  the  good  of  all 
the  Colonies,  .  .  .  we  shall  have  all  the  security  for  our 
rights,  liberties,  and  property,  which  human  policy  can  give 


i66  MEMOIR  or  r.isiiop  seabury. 

us.  The  dependence  of  the  Colonies  on  the  Mother  Country 
will  be  fixed  on  a  firm  foundation ;  the  sovereign  authority  of 
Parliament  over  all  the  dominions  of  the  empire  v^ill  be  es- 
tablished, and  the  Mother  Country  and  all  her  colonies  will  be 
knit  together  in  One  Grand,  Firm,  and  Compact  Body." 

The  foregoing  extracts  from  these  pamphlets  may,  it  is 
hoped,  suffice  to  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  views  of  the 
Farmer,  and  his  mode  of  presenting  them,  as  well  as  perhaps 
to  suggest  to  him  the  important  nature  of  this  controversy  at 
the  time,  and  thus  make  more  intelligible  both  the  interest  of 
the  Farmer  in  it,  and  the  intense  animosity  which  he  stirred 
up  against  himself  by  his  expression  of  that  interest. 

In  taking  leave  of  the  subject  it  seems  to  be  proper  that  I 
should  place  on  record  a  brief  statement  of  the  evidence  that 
the  Farmer  and  the  subject  of  this  Memoir  were  one  and  the 
same  person ;  since  that  fact  has  been  sometimes  denied.  The 
authorship  has  been  in  some  quarters  persistently  attributed  to 
others,  and  the  effort  has  even  been  made  to  prove  that  he 
himself  denied  his  own  authorship. 

It  is  not  remarkable  that  papers,  appearing  in  times  of  great 
public  excitement,  without  the  names  of  their  proper  authors, 
should  be  attributed  to  others  than  those  authors.  The  famous 
letters  of  Junius,  for  example,  were  attributed  to  various  per- 
sons: and  the  Farmer  papers  have  had  the  same  fate.  By 
some  they  have  been  attributed  to  Wilkins ;  by  some  to 
Cooper ;  and  certainly  they  were  attributed  to  Seabury,  as  the 
experiences  above  recounted  establish.  But  when  it  is  said 
that  such  papers  were  attributed  to  one;  and  that  they  were 
not  only  attributed  to  another,  but  also  shown  by  independent, 
competent  and  credible  testimony  to  belong  to  another,  there 
is  no  difficulty  in  determining  between  the  two. 

That  A.  W.  Farmer  was  Dr.  Seabury,  appears  in  the  first 
place  from  the  family  tradition,  coming  to  me  from  my  father, 
who  had  it  from  his  father,  who  was  the  son  of  the  Bishop: 


A   WESTCHESTER   FARMER.  167 

and,  as  part  of  that  tradition,  is  to  be  considered  the  Bish- 
op's statement  in  his  own  handwriting,  handed  down  with 
reverence  in  the  same  hne,  and  herein  above  printed.  There 
is  in  addition  to  this  the  very  distinct  testimony  of  contem- 
poraneous witnesses.  That  of  Drs.  Cooper  and  Chandler  has 
been  already  cited;  and  in  addition  to  their  statements  there 
are  very  specific  words  published  in  a  work  by  the  Rev^. 
Jonathan  Boucher,  A.  M.,  then  Vicar  of  Epsom ;  to  whom  Dr. 
Chandler  refers  in  a  letter  printed  by  Beardsley  *  as  "  a  loyal 
Clergyman  from  Maryland,  the  worthiest  of  the  worthy,  and 
one  of  the  most  confidential  friends  of  Bishop  Seabury.'* 
Mr.  Boucher's  Work  here  referred  to  is  a  collection  of  ser- 
mons, published  in  England,  and  entitled  a  "  View  of  the 
Causes  and  consequences  of  the  American  Revolution."  In  a 
footnote  to  p.  556  of  this  volume,  he  thus  gives  his  authority 
for  a  quotation :  "  See  '  A  View  of  the  Controversy  between 
Great  Britain  and  Her  Colonies,  p.  25,  by,  by  A.  W.  Farmer ;' 
that  is,  by  the  late  Bishop  Seabury  of  Connecticut." 

Referring  to  the  pamphlet  in  the  note  here  cited,  Mr. 
Boucher  continues : 

"  The  fate  of  the  excellent  author  of  this  well  written  piece, 
and  several  others  of  not  inferior  merit  under  the  same  signa- 
ture, might  well  discourage  any  man  who  attempts  to  serve 
the  public,  if  animated  only  by  the  hope  of  temporal  rewards. 
When  a  Missionary  in  the  service  of  the  Society  for  Propa- 
gating the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  while  the  revolt  was  still 
in  its  infancy,  he  wrote  several  seasonable  pieces,  adapted  to 
the  capacities  of  the  people,  under  the  assumed  character  of  a 
Farmer.  They  were  generally  acknowledged  to  have  done 
much  good.  But,  being  attributed  to  another  gentleman,  he 
alone  derived  any  personal  advantage  from  them ;  for  to  him  the 
British  Government  granted  an  handsome  pension,  whilst  the 

4.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  178. 


l68  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

real  author  never  received  a  farthing.  All  the  return  that  all 
his  exertions  procured  for  him,  was  imprisonment,  persecu- 
tion and  exile.  By  this  country  he  was  neglected  and  aban- 
doned, and  by  that  which  gave  him  birth  disowned ;  though  a 
man  of  such  transcendent  abilities  as  would  have  been  an 
ornament  and  a  blessing  to  any  country  that  had  seen  fit  to 
patronize  him." 

The  fact  that  the  government  in  its  wisdom  (or  stupidity) 
had  rewarded  the  wrong  man,  had  been  for  some  time  under- 
stood by  those  who  knew  the  true  author;  and  even  Mr. 
Boucher  himself  seems,  on  a  previous  occasion,  to  have  de- 
rived some  amusement  in  the  contemplation  of  the  irony  of 
the  situation.  Writing  to  Dr.  Seabury,  July  30,  17S7,  he 
alludes  to  the  undeserving  beneficiary  in  an  enigmatical  way, 
obscure  to  the  reader  now,  but  evidently  assumed  to  be  quite 
intelligible  to  his  correspondent.  The  allusion  is  incidental, 
but  the  testimony  is  quite  clear  in  its  implication  both  as  to 
the  real  author,  and  also  as  to  the  fraud  which  had  been 
practiced  against  him.  Taken,  some  day,  in  connection  with 
some  other  reference,  it  may  help  to  determine  the  identity 
of  the  fictitious  claimant;  but,  even  if  not,  the  passage  which 
contains  it  is  interesting  in  itself,  and  also  substantiates  the 
statement  already  quoted  from  Boucher's  book.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

"  Have  you  heard  of  the  very  extraordinary  rumours  that 
have  lately  been  in  circulation  respecting  White's  famous  ser- 
mons on  Mahometanism,  preached  at  the  Bampton  lecture? 
The  story  is  curious.  No  sermons  that  have  been  lately  pub- 
lished have  been  better  received:  even  the  Bp.  of  London's, 
and  Blairs'  were  hardly  more  popular.  The  author  has  got 
very  considerable  preferment  from  the  Abp.  of  Cant:  and 
from  the  Chancellor,  entirely,  as  is  believed,  on  the  score  of 
these  sermons.  But,  lo,  it  now  turns  out,  that  the  mighty 
Professor    was    no    more    the    real    author    of    the    sermons 


A   WESTCHESTER   FARMER.  169 

that  have  been  given  to  the  world  under  his  name,  than  our 
late  friend  of  Punnical  memory,  was  the  real  A.  W,  Farmer. 
There  was  a  Mr.  Badcock,  a  man  of  considerable  learning, 
who  not  long  since  came  over  to  us  from  the  Presbyterians. 
He  is  lately  dead :  and  it  is  said  to  appear  evident  from  his 
papers,  found  by  his  Ex".,  that  he  actually  wrote  the  sermons 
in  question;  for  which  he  was  to  be  paid  £500.  Did  A.  W. 
make  so  good  a  bargain?  Sic  vos  non  vobis  &c:  and  Ma- 
homet you  see  was  not  the  only  imposter." 

As  to  the  denial  of  Dr.  Seabury's  authorship  by  himself,  the 
sole  foundation  for  that  tale  is,  that  being  charged  during  his 
imprisonment  at  New  Haven  with  having  "  written  pamphlets 
and  newspapers  against  the  liberties  of  America,"  he  em- 
bodies in  his  Memorial  to  the  Connecticut  Assembly  above 
referred  to,  a  plea  of  "  not  guilty ;"  stating  that  he  will  be 
"ready  to  vindicate  his  innocence,  as  soon  as  he  shall  be  re- 
stored to  his  liberty."  A  plea  of  not  guilty  to  a  charge  which 
had  been  the  principal  reason  of  his  arrest,  and  the  admission 
of  which  would  not  unlikely  have  sacrificed  his  life  to  the  vio- 
lence of  a  mob,  is  hardly  equivalent  to  the  denial  of  his 
authorship.  And  as  to  his  being  "  ready  to  vindicate  his  inno- 
cence," it  should  be  remembered  that  the  charge  was  that  he 
had  written  against  "the  liberties  of  America,"  which  he  could 
by  no  means  admit.  That  the  plea  was  not  intended,  or  under- 
stood by  his  captors,  to  deny  the  authorship,  appears  from  his 
allusion  to  the  matter  in  his  letter  to  the  Society  of  December 
29,  1776,  above  quoted.  These  pamphlets,  he  says,  "  were 
attributed  to  me,  and  were  the  principal  reason  of  my  being 
carried  into  Connecticut  the  last  year.  //  /  would  have  dis- 
avozved  these  publications  I  should  have  been  set  at  liberty  in 
a  few  days;  but  as  I  refused  to  declare  whether  I  were,  or 
were  not,  the  Author,  they  kept  me;"  while  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  attentions  which  he  would  have  been  likely  to  receive  if 
he  had  avowed  them,  the  letter  qivcs  us  some  idea. 


170  MEMOIR   OF    lUSIIOP    SEABURY. 

And  so,  havinc^  discharged  the  (Uity  of  placing  the  evidence 
of  this  authorship  plainly  on  record,  we  may  leave  these  trou- 
blous times,  and  pass  on  to  others  —  no  less  full  of  troubles 
indeed,  but  in  the  consideration  of  which  the  reader  may  have 
the  advantage  of  finding  the  troubles  to  be  of  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent kind.  Even  trouble  is  sometimes  lessened  by  variety: 
or,  at  least,  one  sometimes  learns  under  one  trouble  to  regret 
that  he  has  lost  the  last. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
VAE  VICTIS ! 

1783. 

THE  contemplation  of  a  lost  cause  can  hardly  fail  to 
be  suggestive  of  melancholy  reflections.  Even  if 
v^e  imagine  that  the  loss  of  that  cause  has  been  the 
gain  of  another  which  holds  the  promise  of  a  higher  benefit 
to  the  world,  we  cannot  but  feel  a  certain  sympathetic  sadness 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  sorrow  experienced  by  those  who 
have  nobly  thrown  themselves  into  the  struggle  for  what  they 
deemed  the  right;  who  have  given  their  all  for  an  idea  which 
they  had  taken  for  better,  for  worse;  and  who  have  reahzed 
at  last  that  they  have  nothing  left  but  the  thankful  remem- 
brance of  having  devoted  their  best  efforts  to  the  frustration 
of  the  evils  in  which  they  have  now  found  themselves  irretriev- 
ably involved. 

The  sense  of  loss  too  would  undoubtedly  be  proportioned  to 
the  confidence  which  the  advocates  of  such  a  cause  had  felt, 
not  only  in  its  justice,  but  also  in  its  prospects  of  ultimate 
success.  Throughout  the  war  the  adherents  to  the  legitimate 
government,  had  been  persuaded  that  the  efforts  of  those  who 
sought  to  overthrow  it  in  this  country,  could  with  small  dif- 
ficulty have  been  brought  to  naught,  if  the  government  had 
seriously  and  with  determination  set  itself  to  the  task  of 
overcoming  the  resistance  opposed  to  it;  and  those  who  had 
opportunities  of  forming  an  intelligent  estimate  of  the  situa- 

171 


172  MEMOIR    OF    r.ISIIOP    SEARURY. 

tion  were  not  slow  to  discern  the  fact  that  the  strength  of  the 
colonial  cause  was  largely  due  to  the  sympathy  and  support 
which  it  received,  implicitly  if  not  explicitly,  from  the  oppo- 
sition in  England,  which  systematically  weakened  the  admin- 
istration, and  so  hampered  its  action  as  to  destroy  its  efficiency. 
The  history  of  the  process  has  hardly  yet  been  fully  written, 
but  enough  perhaps  has  transpired  to  give  good  ground  for 
the  inference  that  the  loss  of  the  Colonies  to  England  was  its 
fault  as  well  as  its  misfortune;  and  that  the  success  of  the 
Colonies  was  due  not  so  much  to  their  own  capability,  as  to  the 
Providential  confusion  of  the  counsels  of  their  adversaries. 
At  all  events  those  who  were  then  disposed  to  take  that  view 
of  the  case,  could  not  but  be  prostrated  with  grief  and  dis- 
appointment—  mingled  sometimes  with  a  more  resentful  feel- 
ing—  at  the  utterly  unexpected  recognition  of  the  Independ- 
ence of  the  thirteen  States,  and  the  settlement  of  the  terms  of 
a  general  peace  in  the  Treaty  signed  November  30,  1782. 

As  illustrative  of  the  state  of  mind  among  the  Loyalists 
both  before  and  after  the  peace  it  may  be  worth  while  to  refer 
to  Dr.  Chandler  who  had  good  opportunities  for  the  formation 
of  intelligent  opinions ;  and  who,  although  he  is  rather  addicted 
to  strong  language,  may  be  supposed  to  have  said  only  what  a 
good  many  others  felt,  though  they  had  less  capacity  for  the 
expression  of  it. 

In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Seabury  from  London,  August  5,  1782,  at 
which  time  he  considered  negotiations  for  peace  at  an  end  for 
the  present,  he  says : 

"  I  am  not  surprised  to  find  your  late  letters  written  in  a 
querulous  strain.  To  see  such  a  cause  disgraced,  and  such  a 
country  ruined,  in  so  infamous  a  manner  —  to  see  the  ab- 
surdity, pusilanimity  and  degeneracy  of  Britain  co-operating 
with  the  diabolical  madness  of  America  —  to  see  justice,  hon- 
our, virtue  and  merit  persecuted  and  insulted  by  those  who 
ought  to  be  their  protectors,  while  everything  that  is  vile,  and 


VAE  VICTIS!  173 

wicked,  and  abominable,  is  encouraged  and  promoted  —  is  in- 
deed beyond  the  bearing  of  mortal  patience.  I  do  not  there- 
fore wonder  that  "  the  affection  and  attachment  of  the 
Loyalists  within  the  British  lines  (to  a  Government  that  will 
suffer  all  this)  are  nearly  expired."     .     .     . 

The  change  in  the  INIinistry  which  you  speak  of,  though 
disagreeable  on  some  accounts,  was,  upon  the  whole,  not  un- 
pleasing  to  us  here;  for  we  plainly  saw  that  nothing  could  be 
done,  or  was  to  be  expected,  under  the  old  Ministry,  well 
disposed  as  it  was,  while  embarrassed  and  intimidated  with 
such  an  opposition.  We  hoped  that  the  new  Ministers,  having 
carried  their  point  of  getting  into  power,  would  see  the  neces- 
sity of  adopting  the  principle  of  their  predecessors  with  regard 
to  the  great  American  question,  and  that  everything  would  be 
carried  on  with  proper  spirit.  But  we  have  been  more  than 
a  little  disappointed.  It  soon  appeared  that  this  Ministry  was 
divided  amongst  themselves ;  that  part  of  the  Cabinet  was  for 
giving  up  America,  and  everything  else;  that  our  exertions, 
where  it  was  meant  to  carry  on  the  war,  were  as  languid  as 
before;  and  that  there  was  little  prospect  of  their  saving  the 
nation. 

The  death  of  Lord  Rockingham,  about  a  month  ago,  has 
produced  another  change,  which  I  hope  will  be  advantageous. 
Mr.  Fox  and  most  of  his  associates,  are  out  of  place;  and 
Lord  Shelburn,  a  warm  and  avowed  enemy  to  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Colonies,  is  the  Minister,  being  at  the  head  of  the 
Treasury.  ...  It  is  thought  that  Administration  will 
soon  undergo  a  second  refinement,  without  which  the  strength 
of  the  nation  cannot  be  properly  exerted.  In  the  meanwhile, 
I  am  well  assured  that  it  is  the  fixed  purpose  of  Lord  Shelburn 
not  to  lose  the  Colonies/' 

Hopefulness  in  spite  of  the  recognition  of  the  evil  political 
conditions  arrayed  against  success,  is  the  manifest  tone  of  this 
letter  written  only  three  or  four  months  before  the  peace.     Af- 


174  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

tcr  that  event,  however,  the  tone  is  changed  to  one  of  disap- 
pointment bordering  upon  despair. 

On  the  15th  of  March,  1783,  Dr.  Chandler  writes  a  letter 
which  I  venture  to  think  worthy  of  being  presented  entire, 
both  on  account  of  the  light  which  it  throws  upon  the  nature  of 
the  influences  which  had  been  afifecting  the  treatment  of  the 
American  question,  and  also  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  interest 
as  one  of  the  series  of  letters  with  which  its  author  favoured 
the  subject  of  this  Memoir  during  the  progress  of  the  war; 
and  which  have  been  carefully  preserved  among  his  papers. 
Could  his  replies  to  Dr.  Chandler's  letters  be  recovered  the 
complete  correspondence  would  be  of  great  value;  but  it  is 
probable  that  they  have  not  survived.^  Dr.  Chandler's  letters 
alone,  however,  are  of  rare  interest  by  reason  of  his  uncom- 
promising convictions  and  trenchant  style ;  as  the  reader  may 
perhaps  infer  from  the  following  specimen. 

"  My  Dear  Sir 

This  is  to  be  delivered  to  you  by  Sir  John  St.  Clair.  This 
young  Baronet  is  going  over  to  America  to  look  into  his  affairs 
there;  he  offers  to  take  charge  of  any  letters  I  have  occasion 
to  send,  and  wishes  to  be  introduced  to  any  of  my  friends. 
Will  you  therefore  accept  of  my  recommendation,  and  shew 
him  any  little  civilities  that  may  fall  in  your  way.  I  do  not 
insist  upon  your  giving  him  a  dinner ;  yet  it  might  not  be  amiss 
if  he  were  permitted  to  drink. tea  with  your  daughters. 

Your  favour  of  Dec^.  17th  by  Mr.  Cooke,  did  not  reach  me 
till  the  25th  of  Feb :  —  I  fully  intended  to  acknowledge  it  by 

5.  In  the  hope  that  these  letters  might  have  passed  into  the  pos- 
session of  Bishop  Hobart,  who  married  a  daughter  of  Dr.  Chandler, 
and  that  they  might  have  been  preserved  among  his  papers,  I  once 
asked  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Hobart,  the  son  of  the  Bishop,  concerning 
them;  and  learned  from  him  that  Bishop  Hobart's  papers  had  been 
destroyed  by  a  fire  in  which  his  house  was  burned. 


VAE  VICTIS!  175 

the  Packet,  but  I  was,  in  spite  of  the  most  resolute  exertions, 
and  to  my  great  mortification,  disappointed.  I  would  have 
written  fully  to  you  by  this  opportunity ;  but  Sir  John,  though 
he  has  talked  for  some  time  of  his  voyage,  sets  off  at  last  un- 
expectedly, and  it  happens,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  that  is  in 
a  comparative  sense,  that  I  must  put  you  off  with  a  hasty 
letter. 

When  you  wrote,  little  did  you  imagine,  though  your  im- 
agination is  a  very  fine  one,  and  can  make  as  daring  excursions 
as  any  man's,  that  we  had  arrived  at  that  state  of  outrageous 
insanity,  which  before  this  time  you  must  have  been  informed 
of.  At  that  time  you  could  conceive  of  no  character's  being 
worse  than  that  of  Fox.  His,  I  confess,  is  bad  enough  in  all 
conscience ;  but  we  are  now  fully  convinced  that  he  is  a  political 
Saint^  when  compared  with  that  infernal  politician  who  was 
lately  at  the  head  of  this  nation.  Fox  has  always  been  fair  and 
open ;  he  would  have  given  Independency  to  the  Colonies,  but 
he  would  not  have  given  them  the  best  part  of  Canada  and 
Louisiana ;  and  he  would  have  secured  some  tolerable  terms 
for  the  Loyalists ;  whereas  in  contradiction  to  all  his  professions 
and  avowed  principles,  with  the  fullest  evidence  before  him 
that  the  recovery  of  our  just  rights  was  practicable  and  easy, 
that  true  friend  of  sedition  and  son  of  perdition,  Malagrida,^ 
has  plunged  the  nation  into  irretrievable  ruin  and  everlasting 
infamy.  We  have  been  at  a  loss  to  account  for  such  monstrous 
conduct,  upon  any  motives  that  can  actuate  the  mind  of  a 
human  creature,  and  we  are  still  unable  completely  to  solve  the 
problem.  Indeed  we  can  easily  conceive  of  his  motives  for 
giving  Independency  to  America,  and  for  making  a  general 
peace,  on  such  terms  as  might  be  had ;  for  it  may  easily  be  sup- 

6.  A  nickname  given  by  contemporary  political  opponents  to  Lord 
Shelburn:  derived  perhaps  from  the  reputation  of  Gabriel  Malagrida, 
an  Italian  Jesuit  and  Missionary  to  Brazil,  said  to  have  been  a  con- 
spirator against  the  King  of  Portugal.     See  Webster's  Dictionary. 


176  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABUKY. 

posed  that  he  had  entered  into  such  engagements  with  the 
leaders  of  the  rebelHon,  that  if  he  refused  to  grant  them  In- 
dependency when  he  had  it  in  his  power,  they  would  expose  to 
the  world  his  villanies  and  treasons;  but  this  could  not  oblige 
him  to  grant  them  so  much  more  than  Independency.  And  as 
to  a  general  peace,  he  was  under  one  of  the  strongest  temp- 
tations, to  one  in  his  situation,  to  secure  it  at  all  adventures ; 
for,  being  involved  in  debt  up  to  the  very  ears,  by  that  means  he 
was  able  to  make,  and  has  made,  by  the  purchase  and  sale  of 
stock,  not  much  less  than  £200,000,  some  say  more.  It  is  an 
undoubted  fact  that  he  has  very  lately  paid  off  a  mortgage  to 
one  person,  whom  I  know,  to  the  amount  of  £70,000  —  But  all 
this  does  not  solve  the  problem,  in  its  full  extent.  Time,  that 
great  revealer  of  secrets,  will  sooner  or  later  place  it  in  its 
proper  light. 

When  the  terms  of  the  peace  were  known,  we  were  in  hopes 
that  the  Parliament  would  have  so  much  wisdom  and  spirit  as 
to  set  it  aside,  and  to  renew  the  war  with  proper  vigour.  But 
it  is  over  with  England.  Her  stamina  have  failed;  her  Con- 
stitution is  ruined ;  and  her  dissolution  must  soon  follow.  The 
most  it  seems  that  could  be  done  by  Parliament  was  to  disap- 
prove of  the  peace,  and  yet  confirm  it,  and  to  displace  the 
Minister,  but  without  any  punishment  or  impeachment.  What 
can  be  the  end  of  these  things !  We  have  been  near  a  month 
without  an  Administration.  The  Nation,  you  know,  and  the 
world  knows,  is  divided  into  a  number  of  parties.  No  one 
party  has  a  bottom  broad  enough  to  support  the  pillar  of  Gov- 
ernment. A  coalition  of  two  or  more  parties  is  therefore  neces- 
sary. An  attempt  of  this  sort  has  been  making,  but  to  in- 
corporate such  heterogeneous  bodies  is  the  work  of  time.  It 
is  now  thought  that  the  'Rovih.itcs  and  ¥o:s.ites  will  soon  unite, 
and  form  an  administration  that  will  have  a  chance  for  some 
permanency. 

I  am  extremely  impatient  to  hear  in  what  manner  the  con- 


VAE  VICTIS!  177 

cessions  of  this  Country  affect  the  minds  of  people  in  America, 
both  of  the  LoyaHsts  and  of  the  now  legalized,  sanctified  rebels. 
I  want  much  to  know,  whether  the  country  is  Hkely  to  become 
peaceable;  or  whether  there  is  not  a  greater  probability  of  a 
contest  previous  to  it,  between  the  Republicans  and  Anti-Re- 
publicans which  must  again  bring  on  a  deluge  of  blood.  In 
the  latter  case,  if  the  Loyalists  are  not  allowed  a  neutrality,  I 
hope  they  will  not  hesitate  which  side  to  take.  They  have 
nothing,  I  believe,  to  expect  from  this  country,  unless  they  re- 
move into  some  part  of  what  are  now  the  British  dominions. 
To  such  as  have  lost  estates  by  confiscation  some  compensation 
will  be  made,  but  on  such  conditions  of  leaving  the  States  &c 
as  many  thousands  will  not,  in  prudence,  be  able  to  comply 
with.  In  what  part  of  the  world  I  shall  fix  myself,  is  at  present 
impossible  to  foresee.  Canada  appears,  at  this  instant,  to  be 
most  eligible.  Wherever  I  may  be  situated,  you  may  always 
depend  upon  my  continuing  to  be,  with  sincere  esteem  and  af- 
fection. 

Unalterably  yours  — 
London,  March  15th,  1783. 
Rev.  Dr  Seabury." 

The  feelings  of  Dr.  Chandler  were,  in  a  man  of  his  spirit 
and  with  his  experiences,  perhaps  natural  enough.  His  ac- 
count at  any  rate  affords  a  rather  vivid  picture  of  the  situation, 
and  his  apprehensions  of  the  future  were  no  doubt  shared  by 
many  in  that  day.  One  can  hardly  help  thinking  after  all,  in 
view  of  his  lugubrious  forecast  of  subsequent  developments 
which  never  took  place,  how  foolish  it  is  to  think  that  our 
wisdom  can  measure  the  designs  of  Providence  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  human  and  National  affairs.  Had  Dr.  Chandler  and 
his  disappointed  associates  been  able  really  to  penetrate  the  fu- 
ture, and  see  not  only  the  continued  expansion  and  strengthen- 
ing of  the  British  Empire,  but  also  the   development  of   the 


178  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Free  and  Independent  American  States  into  a  consolidation 
fully  as  Imperial  as  that  of  Great  Britain,  and  with  all  the  ap- 
propriate accompaniments  of  distant  subject  Colonies,  and 
other  facilities  for  the  cultivation  of  a  legitimate  despotism, 
they  would  no  doubt  have  been  persuaded  that  there  was  not 
so  much  need  to  dread  the  results  of  the  temporary  triumph 
of  Republican  principles. 

But  many  of  those  who  fully  sympathized  with  Dr.  Chandler 
in  his  general  feelings,  were  more  moderate  in  the  expression 
of  their  feelings,  and  more  judicious  in  estimating  the  influence 
of  events  which  they  equally  deplored  upon  the  course  which 
they  themselves  thought  it  their  duty  to  follow. 

The  Rev^.  Dr.  Inglis,  for  example,  the  friend  and  political 
associate  of  Dr.  Chandler  and  Dr.  Seabury,  being  then  Rector 
of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  thus  expresses  himself  in  a 
letter  of  March  28,  1783,  to  the  Hon.  James  Duane: 

*'  The  general  part  I  took  in  the  late  contest  was  the  result 
of  principle  and  conscience;  to  their  dictates  I  honestly  ad- 
hered, and  conceived  I  was  thereby  promoting  the  best  interests 
and  welfare  of  America.  But  the  views  of  Divine  Providence, 
respecting  this  Country,  were  different;  and  it  is  my  indis- 
pensable duty  to  acquiesce  in  the  decisions  of  Providence.  By 
recognizing  the  Independency  of  America,  the  King  gives  up 
his  claim  to  my  allegiance ;  I  am  thenceforth  at  full  liberty  to 
transfer  it  to  that  State  where  Providence  may  place  me ;  and 
I  need  not  tell  you  that  the  same  principles,  the  same  sense  of 
the  sacredness  of  an  oath,  and  the  same  dictates  of  conscience, 
will  lead  me  in  future,  as  they  have  done  hitherto,  to  observe 
inviolably  my  oath  of  Allegiance.'"^ 

As  to  the  feeling  of  Dr.  Seabury  himself  in  this  juncture 
there  appears  no  record.  His  subsequent  course  as  a  citizen  of 
the  State  of  Connecticut  is  sufficient  to  show  that,  however 

7.  From  a  letter  in  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  Inglis,  among  Bishop 
Seabury's  papers. 


VAE  VICTIS!  179 

much  he  may  have  sympathized  with  Dr.  Chandler  in  his  sense 
of  outrage  and  disappointment  at  the  conduct  and  result  of  the 
War,  his  judgment  in  regard  to  his  duty  in  the  course  of  his 
own  life  was  based  upon  the  principles  so  well  expressed  by 
Dr.  Inglis. 

But  what  is  of  chief  importance  for  us  to  notice  at  this  time 
is  that  the  issue  of  the  contest  in  which  he  had  been  for  many 
years  so  strenuously  engaged  had  been  such  as  to  throw  him 
back  upon  the  renewed  exercise  of  the  Ministry ;  which  he  had 
indeed  never  neglected,  but  which  he  had  been  incapacitated 
from  discharging  in  the  regular  way.  The  political  contest 
was  over,  and  nothing  remained  for  him  in  this  respect,  but 
simple  acquiescence  in  the  result,  and  the  faithful  discharge  of 
the  duties  of  ordinary  good  citizenship  in  connection  with  the 
performance  of  the  functions  of  his  Ministry.  The  open 
questions  were  closed;  and  what  had  been  his  chief  motive  in 
trying  to  influence  the  determination  of  them,  namely  the  safe- 
guarding of  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  and  the  securing  of  the 
introduction  of  Bishops  as  a  means  to  that  end,  while  it  was  no 
longer  operative  as  an  inducement  to  influence  the  course  of 
civil  affairs,  was  still  vitally  present  to  his  conscience  as  the 
controlling  incentive  to  his  individual  action.  From  this 
period  accordingly  the  concern  of  his  life  is  the  Church;  and 
to  the  benefit,  extension  and  preservation  of  that  he  wholly 
devoted  himself,  leaving  the  course  of  this  world  to  the  order- 
ing of  whomsoever  the  Divine  Providence  might  see  fit  to  se- 
lect for  that  end ;  feeling  perhaps  that  the  precept  of  Christ  to 
one  who  sought  to  postpone  his  discipleship  until  certain  pre- 
liminary affairs  had  been  disposed  of,  had  acquired  a  new  and 
very  solemn  meaning  for  him :  ^'  Follow  Me,  and  let  the  dead 
bury  their  dead." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
THE  ELECTION  TO  THE  EPISCOPATE. 

1783- 

BEFORE  Dr.  Seabury  could  have  received  Dr.  Chan- 
dler's last  letter  —  within  ten  days,  in  fact,  of  its  date 
— ^an  event  occurred  v^hich  was  of  momentous  influ- 
ence both  upon  his  own  life,  and  upon  the  future  history  of  the 
Church  to  which  he  was  devoted :  that  is  to  say,  his  election  to 
the  Episcopate  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  which  took  place 
at  Woodbury  in  that  State,  on  March  25th,  being  the  Feast  of 
the  Annunciation,  in  the  year  1783. 

The  articles  of  November  30,  1782,  above  mentioned,  were 
provisional,  and  were  to  constitute  the  treaty  of  peace  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  Colonies  recognized  as  independent 
States,  when  peace  should  have  been  settled  between  Great 
Britain  and  France.  On  the  20th  of  January  1783,  articles 
were  agreed  upon  between  Great  Britain  and  France ;  whereby 
the  provisional  articles  of  November  1782  came  into  full  force 
as  the  treaty  of  peace/  These  articles  arrived  at  New  York 
in  March  1783.^  The  Connecticut  election  took  place  March 
25,  1783.^  The  articles  were  ratified  by  Congress  in  May 
1783.*     The  Presbyter  elected  to  the  Episcopate  sailed  June  7, 

1.  History  of  New  York  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  by  Thomas 
Jones,  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Province,  vol.  II,  p.  238. 

2.  Ibid.,  259. 

3.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  p.  78. 

4.  Jones'  History  of  New  York,  II,  p.  259-60. 

180 


THE   ELECTION    TO   THE   EPISCOPATE.  l8l 

1783.^  And  the  British  forces,  under  Sir  Guy  Carleton,  evac- 
uated New  York,  November  25,  1783. 

This  comparison  of  dates  is  suggestive,  not  only  of  prompt 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Electors  and  the  Elect,  but  also  of  the 
settled  judgment  and  matured  purpose  which  made  them  ready 
to  proceed  to  action  so  soon  as  opportunity  should  be  offered 
for  it  by  the  severance  of  the  tie  that  bound  the  Colonists  to 
the  Mother  Country.  The  election  precedes  by  a  month  or 
two  the  Congressional  ratification  of  the  peace ;  and  the  Bishop 
elect  is  on  the  water  seven  months  in  advance  of  the  retirement 
of  the  British  troops  consequent  upon  the  peace. 

This  readiness  to  act  upon  the  first  appearance  of  a  possible 
favourable  opportunity  is  the  more  remarkable  because  of  the 
number  of  doubtful  questions  which,  in  view  of  the  history  of 
the  struggle  for  the  Episcopate,  and  the  continued  existence  of 
many  of  the  hindrances  which  had  hitherto  prevented  the  ob- 
taining of  it,  would  be  apt  to  present  themselves  to  all  thought- 
ful men. 

The  one  want  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  felt  by  earnest 
Churchmen  in  the  Colonies  to  be  more  imperative  than  any 
other  was  the  want  of  a  resident  Bishop.  By  every  available 
means  this  want  was  for  many  years  vainly  made  known  to 
those  who  were  in  possession  of  the  Official  Episcopal  au- 
thority by  which  it  could  be  supplied.  Some  of  the  English 
Bishops  had  advocated  the  sending  over  of  a  Bishop  for  the 
Colonies,  and  probably  all  desired  it :  but  the  act  of  consecra- 
tion under  their  circumstances  was  one  of  which  they  could  not 
conceive  the  possibility.  They  realized,  no  doubt,  the  abstract 
possibility  of  the  existence  of  the  Church  independently  of  con- 
nection with  the  legal  system  of  Great  Britain ;  but  they  could 
not  realize  the  possibility  of  the  action  of  British  Bishops  apart 
from  the  restraints  imposed  upon  them  by  the  British  system. 

5.  Memorial  to  Commissioners,  ante  chapter  X ;  cf.  Hawks  and  Ferry, 
Connecticut   Church   Documents.  11,  212. 


l82  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

As  the  law  was  commonly  understood  they  were  not  at 
liberty  to  act  without  the  permission  of  the  Government ;  and 
that  permission  the  Government,  for  its  own  reasons,  was  sure 
not  to  grant.  The  loyalty  of  Churchmen  in  the  Colonies  the 
Government  was  in  the  main  safe  in  counting  upon :  the  loyalty 
of  the  Puritan  interest  in  the  Colonies  was  never  to  be  counted 
upon ;  and  it  was  not  safe  to  put  it  to  the  too  severe  test  of  the 
sight  of  an  American  Bishop.  Still  less  was  it  safe  to  incur  the 
opposition  of  the  dissenting  interest  at  home,  which  would  have 
been  aroused  against  any  ministry  which  should  have  con- 
sented to  the  consecration  of  such  a  Bishop. 

And  when  the  Revolution  was  accomplished,  and  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  States  acknowledged,  it  may  be  imagined  that 
the  Churches  in  those  States  would  seem  to  many  to  be  none 
the  nearer  to  the  fulfilment  of  their  desire:  in  fact,  perhaps, 
their  condition  was  worse  than  before.  For  before,  they  had 
access,  even  though  at  great  trouble  and  expense,  to  the  Bishop 
of  London,  whose  jurisdiction  had  hitherto  been  recognized  as 
the  common  bond  of  union  between  the  Churches  in  the  several 
colonies.  But  now  they  had  no  Bishop.  That  jurisdiction,  in 
abeyance  during  the  War,  was  practically  abandoned  at  its 
conclusion.  The  laws  of  England  remaining  as  they  had  been, 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King  was  connected  with  ordina- 
tion; and  this,  hereafter,  could  not  be  taken  by  those  who 
should  go  from  the  States  to  England  for  Orders.  So  that, 
always  important  and  desirable,  it  had  now  become  actually 
necessary  that  Bishops  should  be  had.  Otherwise,  the  Church 
as  a  distinct  body  must  come  to  an  end  for  want  of  power  to 
perpetuate  itself  by  its  own  laws ;  and  its  members  must  lapse 
into  infidelity,  or  be  absorbed  into  other  bodies. 

Yet  what  was  the  prospect  now,  of  the  success  of  an  appli- 
cation already  many  times  made  and  rejected?  Would  the 
English  Bishops  be  more  disposed  to  act  in  behalf  of  men  who 
had  become  citizens  of  another  country,  than  they  had  been  for 


THE   ELECTION    TO   THE   EPISCOPATE.  183 

those  whom  they  acknowledged  as  fellow  subjects  of  a  common 
government  ?  And,  if  they  were,  would  they  be  more  able  than 
they  had  been  ?  For  the  change  in  the  law  depended  upon  the 
civil,  and  not  upon  the  ecclesiastical  authority;  and  it  was  un- 
likely that  the  civil  authority  would  care  to  sanction  an  act, 
the  apprehension  of  which  had  been  one  of  the  causes  of  the 
disaffection  which  had  led  to  the  war;  since  such  sanction 
might  be  interpreted  as  an  insult  to  the  newly  made  States. 
And  supposing  the  application  to  be  successful,  what  were  the 
prospects  before  one  who  might  return  to  this  country  as  a 
Bishop?  The  hatred  of  Prelacy  among  the  Puritan  bodies 
could  hardly  be  thought  to  have  become  entirely  extinct;  even 
though  it  might  by  success  have  been  somewhat  modified. 
And  the  loyalty  which  had  largely  prevailed  among  the  clergy 
had  made  them  obnoxious,  as  a  class,  to  a  great  part  of  the 
American  people ;  whose  aversion  to  the  preservation  of  a  body 
which  was  looked  upon  as  more  English  than  American,  might 
fairly  be  presupposed. 

More  important,  perhaps,  than  all  the  questions  thus  sug- 
gested, was  the  question,  upon  whom  it  devolved  to  move  in 
the  matter  if  it  were  to  be  moved.  Were  the  members  of  the 
Church  here  to  wait  for  Bishops  to  be  sent  out  to  them.  That 
course  had  been  pursued  long  enough  in  vain.  Were  they  to 
consider  themselves  as  constituting  in  the  different  States,  one 
body,  in  such  sense  as  that  no  movement  could  be  made  with- 
out the  consent  of  all?  But  this  would  have  been  to  assume 
the  existence  of  an  union  which  did  not  come  fully  into  being 
for  more  than  six  years  afterward,  and  the  first  step  toward 
which  had  not  yet  been  taken.  And,  moreover,  it  would  have 
been  to  take  for  granted  the  existence  of  a  political  union 
among  the  States  themselves,  which  was  yet  a  project  to  be 
painfully  wrought  out  in  years  to  come,  rather  than  an  ac- 
complished fact. 

Or  was  some  individual  to  start  off,  of  his  own  motion,  and 


184  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

bring  back  the  coveted  treasure  ?  This  was  an  experiment  that 
had  been  tried  in  the  case  of  Talbot;  who  had  on  his  own 
responsibility  secured  an  irregular  consecration  in  England, 
and  found  himself  on  his  return  to  this  country  so  entirely 
without  recognition  that  he  never  presumed  to  claim  Episcopal 
jurisdiction,  nor,  so  far  as  known,  even  to  exercise  a  single 
function  of  the  Episcopal  Office.  It  is  hardly  probable  that 
this  precedent  was  known  by  the  Connecticut  clergy,  but  had 
they  known  it,  the  course  which  they  chose  indicates  that  they 
would  hardly  have  been  likely  to  follow  it.® 

Such  questions  as  these  which  have  been  suggested  were 
present  to  the  minds  of  all  reflecting  Churchmen ;  and  met,  of 
course,  with  differing  answers.  But  in  one  State  only  were 
they  met  by  the  concerted  action  of  men  who  had  some  claims 
to  be  regarded  as  the  representatives  of  the  Church  in  that 
State. 

The  Clergy  of  Connecticut  had  been  long  familiar  with  these 
questions,  and  their  training  in  Church  principles  had  been 
such  as  to  enable  them  to  know  what  was  due,  at  their  hands, 
to  the  members  of  the  family  of  Christ  of  whom  they  had  been 
put  in  charge.  They  understood  that  their  duty  required  them 
not  only  to  minister  the  Word  and  Sacraments  to  their  people, 
but  also  to  seek  to  provide  for  them  that  oversight  which  was 
above  their  own  office  to  give,  and  to  take  measures  to  secure 
the  continued  supply  of  the  ministrations  of  the  Gospel  after 
they  themselves  should  have  been  called  to  their  rest.     What- 

6.  The  Rev.  John  Talbot,  of  Burlington,  New  Jersey,  was  conse- 
crated in  1723-1724  by  Robert  Welton  and  Ralph  Taylor;  Welton 
having  been  before  consecrated  by  Taylor  alone.  Welton  and  Talbot 
both  came  to  this  country,  Welton  is  said  by  Percival  to  have  "  exer- 
cised Episcopal  functions,"  though  upon  what  evidence  does  not  appear. 
The  English  Government,  however,  interfering  at  the  request  of  the 
then  Bishop  of  London,  Welton  retired  to  Portugal,  where  he  died 
in  1726.  Talbot  took  the  oaths  and  submitted.  See  Percival's  Apology 
for  the  Apostolic  Succession,  pp.  222-226. 


THE    ELECTION    TO   THE    EPISCOPATE.  185 

ever  the  Churchmen  in  other  States  might  do,  they  determined 
to  be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  a  Bishop  for  the  Church 
in  Connecticut.  They  recognized  in  the  State  of  Connecticut 
the  civil  limits  by  v^hich  they  were  distinguished,  as  to  this 
matter,  from  their  brethren  in  other  States,  as  they  were  from 
their  brethren  in  England ;  and  although  there  was  a  common 
cause  between  them  and  their  brethren  in  other  States,  yet  they 
saw  no  obligation  either  to  await  their  convenience,  or  to  sub- 
mit to  a  policy  of  their  imposition.  And  so,  although  they 
were  willing  to  advise  with  them,  as  they  showed  by  consulta- 
tion with  the  Clergy  of  New  York,  they  did  not  hesitate  to 
enter  upon  an  independent  course  of  action. 

The  whole  number  of  the  Connecticut  Clergy  at  that  time 
was  fourteen.  Of  this  number  ten  were  present  at  the  meeting 
in  Woodbury  at  which  the  election  took  place.  The  Rev^. 
Abraham  Jarvis,  Missionary  at  Middletown,  was  the  Secretary 
of  this  convention,  but  no  minutes  of  that  meeting  appear  to 
have  survived.  The  evidence  of  the  action  taken  is  contained 
in  the  various  letters  w^hich  were  written  to  give  effect  to  it; 
and  in  the  testimonials  which  were  prepared  for  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  Bishop  Elect  to  the  Archbishops,  both  of  Canter- 
bury and  of  York,  and  the  Bishop  of  London.  These  papers 
seem  to  have  been  drafted  by  the  Secretary,  and  they  are  care- 
ful and  dignified  documents,  setting  forth  the  present  situation 
of  the  Church  in  the  Colonies,  the  desire  of  the  Connecticut 
Clergy  to  be  instrumental  in  procuring  the  needed  Episcopate, 
and  their  selection  of  Dr.  Seabury  to  be  their  Bishop  if  con- 
secration might  be  conferred  upon  him,  for  which  they 
earnestly  ask  the  action  of  the  English  Bishops.  The  papers 
are  printed  in  full  in  Dr.  Beardsley's  Life,  (pp.  80-95)  and  it 
seems  unnecessary  to  reproduce  them  here.  They  comprise  a 
letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  York,  dated  April  21,  1783, 
signed  by  the  Secretary;  a  Testimonial  of  the  same  date 
signed  (according  to  Dr.  Beardsley)  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Leaming, 


lB6  MEMOIR  OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

the  Rev.  Dr.  Inglis,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Benjamin  Moore,  assistant  minister  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  others  —  the  others  appearing,  from  the  copy  be- 
fore me  in  Dr.  Seabury's  handwriting,  to  have  been  the  Rev^. 
Isaac  Browne,  Rev<^.  Abraham  Jarvis,  Rev.  Jonathan  Odell, 
Rev.  John  Beardsley;  and  (in  "London  July  lo  ")  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Cooke;  a  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  York,  May 
24,  1783,  signed  by  Drs.  Learning,  Inglis  and  Moore ;  and  a 
letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  signed  by  Mr.  Jarvis 
as  Secretary,  which  is  printed  by  Beardsley  without  date. 
There  is  also  printed  by  him  a  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  dated  j\Iay  24,  1783,  which  he  quotes  from  "  The 
Churchman's  Magazine"  for  February  1807,  as  having  been 
there  given  without  signature.  From  a  copy  of  part  of  a 
letter  in  Dr.  Seabury's  handwriting,  it  would  appear  that  a 
letter  which  was  a  counterpart  of  that  above  noted  as  addressed 
to  the  Archbishop  of  York,  was  under  the  same  date.  May 
24,  1783,  addressed  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  This 
copy,  with  a  few  unimportant  verbal  differences,  is  the  same 
as  the  first  part  of  the  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  York,  to 
the  end  of  the  last  paragraph  on  p.  84  of  Beardsley's  Life,  and 
there  concludes  with  a  memorandum  that  the  remainder  is 
omitted  as  relating  to  another  matter,  noting  the  signatures  as 
those  of  Inglis,  Moore,  Browne,  Leaming,  Odell  and  Beards- 
ley. 

There  appears  also  to  have  been  an  additional  testimonial 
given  from  New  York  June  3,  1783,  which  is,  somewhat 
abridged,  to  the  same  effect  as  that  of  April  21,  1783,  printed 
by  Beardsley;  which,  as  not  hitherto  printed,  it  may  be  well 
to  place  here. 

"  New  York,  June  3,  1783 
Whereas  our  well-beloved  in  Christ  Samuel  Seabury  Doctor 
of  Divinity,  at  the  earnest  request  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  of 


THE    ELECTION    TO   THE    EPISCOPATE.  187 

Connecticut,  hath  resolved  to  embark  speedily  for  England, 
that  he  may  be  admitted  to  the  sacred  office  of  a  Bishop ;  and 
afterwards  to  return  to  Connecticut,  and  there  exercise  the 
spiritual  powers  pecuHar  to  the  Episcopal  office,  by  superin- 
tending the  Clergy,  Ordaining  candidates  for  Holy  Orders, 
and  confirming  such  of  the  Laity  as  choose  to  be  confirmed; 
and  having  applied  to  us  for  Letters  Testimonial  on  the  oc- 
casion   

We  therefore,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  in  justice  to 
Dr.  Seabury's  abilities,  learning,  and  moral  charcter,  of  which 
we  deservedly  entertain  the  highest  opinion,  do  certify, 
that  we  have,  for  many  years  past,  been  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  said  Dr.  Seabury,  and  that  we  believe  him  to  be  every 
way  qualified  for  the  sacred  office  of  a  Bishop.  And  we  cannot 
but  express  our  earnest  wish  that  he  may  succeed  in  his  ap- 
plication, as  many  inconveniences  may  be  thereby  prevented, 
which  no  after  care  can  remove,  when  they  have  once  taken 
place. 

Charles  Inglis,  D.  D., 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  New  York 

JoN".  Odell,  a.  M., 
Missionary,    Burlington,    New   Jersey 

Benj".  Moore,  A.  M., 
Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York  " 

The  general  plan  of  those  who  sought  thus  to  obtain  the 
Episcopate  appears  from  these  papers  to  have  been  that  if  Dr. 
Seabury  should  be  consecrated,  he  should  "  with  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Society  "  return  to  Connecticut  in  the  character  of  a 
Missionary  of  the  Society  at  New  London;  with  the  hope  of 
being  permitted  by  the  Governor  to  exercise  the  spiritual 
powers  of  the  Episcopal  office  there ;  a  permission  which,  from 
representations  of  persons  of  character  not  members  of  the 
Episcopal    Church,  it  was    anticipated    might    be    cheerfully 


l88  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

granted,  since  the  acknowledgment  of  Independence  had  re- 
moved apprehensions  of  temporal  power  attaching  to  the  Epis- 
copal office.  It  seems  to  have  been  imagined  too,  that  the  King 
would  readily  dispense  with  any  impediments  to  the  proposed 
consecration ;  and  that  thus  action  might  be  taken  for  the  con- 
secration not  only  of  Dr.  Seabury  for  Connecticut,  but  also  of 
Dr.  Chandler  for  Nova  Scotia;  which  would  provide  in 
America  for  the  continuance  of  the  succession  there  in  con- 
formity to  the  Apostolic  Canon  requiring  that  a  consecration 
to  the  Episcopate  should  be  by  at  least  two  Bishops.  There  is  a 
plea  also  made  for  the  application  to  the  benefit  of  the  Bishop 
of  Connecticut  of  certain  legacies  which  at  different  times  had 
been  bequeathed  for  the  support  of  Bishops  in  America;  and, 
in  addition  to  the  usual  arguments  for  the  necessity  of  Episco- 
pal oversight,  there  is  urged  the  danger  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  otherwise  possible  success  of  "  a  plan  of  a  very  extra- 
ordinary nature,  lately  formed  and  published  in  Philadelphia, 
the  plan  being  "  to  constitute  a  nominal  Episcopate  by  the 
united  suffrages  of  Presbyters  and  laymen."  This  proposed 
plan,  published  by  the  Rev.  William  White,  then  Rector  of 
Christ  Church  Philadelphia,  and  afterwards  Bishop  of  Penn- 
sylvania, was  obviously  one  of  the  ''  inconveniences  "  sought 
to  be  prevented  by  the  actual  consecration  of  a  Bishop,  which 
it  was  conceived  that  "  no  after  care  can  remove,  when  they 
have  once  taken  place."  A  full  account  of  this  anticipated  in- 
convenience is  given  in  a  letter  of  the  Connecticut  Clergy  con- 
vened at  Woodbury  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  White,  printed  by  Dr. 
Beardsley  (pp.  98-102)  ;  and  an  account  of  the  same  matter  is 
given  by  Bishop  White  himself  in  his  Memoirs  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church,  (pp.  89-92) 

One  of  the  very  many  important  services  rendered  by  the 
late  Bishop  Perry  to  the  cause  of  the  history  of  the  Church 
in  this  country,  was  the  discovery  and  preservation  of  another 
paper,  which  though  not  an  official  document,  bears  the  most 


THE    ELECTION    TO    THE    EPISCOPATE.  189 

complete  and  interesting  testimony  to  this  election.  The 
Bishop  told  me  that  having  been  on  a  visit  to  a  member  of  the 
family  of  the  Rev^.  Samuel  Parker,  sometime  Bishop  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, he  was  told  of  a  parcel  of  old  papers  which  had 
been  consigned  to  the  cellar  for  burning,  as  they  were  sup- 
posed to  be  of  no  particular  value.  But  anything  of  that  kind 
was  treasure  inestimable  to  Bishop  Perry;  and  having  ob- 
tained leave  to  ransack  the  parcel  he  made  some  most  valua- 
ble discoveries.  Among  other  things  he  found  an  autograph 
letter  of  the  Rev.  D.  Fogg  to  Mr.  Parker,  giving  an  account  of 
the  action  of  the  Woodbury  Convention  of  which  he  had  been 
a  member.  This  letter  has,  of  course,  been  printed  before, 
but  I  reproduce  it  from  the  copy  in  Bishop  Perry's  writing 
which  he  sent  to  my  father  in  1862.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"  Pomfret  14th  July  '83 
Dear  Sir : 

I  wrote  you  a  few  lines  2^  inst.  by  an  uncertain  conveyance 
in  which  I  attempted  to  excuse  myself  by  throwing  the  blame 
upon  you  for  not  waiting  for  you  till  the  time  you  mentioned. 
I  now  plead  guilty  and  beg  your  forgiveness.  I  likewise  men- 
tioned that  the  Connecticut  Clergy  had  done  all  in  their  power 
respecting  the  matter  you  were  anxious  about  but  they  keep  it 
a  profound  secret  even  from  their  most  intimate  friends  of  the 
Laity.  The  matter  is  this:  After  consulting  the  Clergy  in 
New  York  how  to  keep  up  the  succession  they  unanimously 
agreed  to  send  a  person  to  England  to  be  consecrated  Bishop 
for  America  and  pitched  upon  Dr.  Seabury  as  the  most  proper 
person  for  this  purpose,  who  sailed  for  England  the  beginning 
of  last  month,  highly  recommended  by  all  the  Clergy  in  New 
York,  Connecticut,  &c.  And  if  he  succeeds  he  is  to  come  out 
as  missionary  for  New  London  or  some  other  vacant  mission. 
And  if  they  will  not  receive  him  in  Connecticut,  or  any  other  of 
the  States  of  America,  he  is  to  go  to  Nova  Scotia.     Sir  Guy 


190  MEMOIR    OF    BISIlOr    SEABURY. 

[CarlctonJ   highly  approves  of  the  plan  and  has  used  all  his 
influence  in  favour  of  it. 

The  Clergy  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  instruct  Dr.  Sea- 
bury,  if  none  of  the  regular  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England 
will  ordain  him,  to  go  down  to  Scotland  and  receive  ordina- 
tion from  a  nonjuring  Bishop. 

Please  let  us  know  by  Mr.  Grosvenor  how  you  approve  of 
the  plan  and  whether  you  have  received  any  late  accounts 
from  England.  From  your  affct.  brother, 

D.  Fogg." 

Dr.  Beardsley  prints  with  this  letter  (p.  105)  another  from 
the  same  writer  to  Mr.  Parker ;  which  gives  an  additional  in- 
sight into  the  feelings  and  motives  of  the  electors : 

"  Dear  Sir :  I  am  very  glad  that  the  conduct  of  the  Connecti- 
cut Clergy  meets  with  your  approbation  in  the  main.  Dr.  Sea- 
bury 's  being  a  refugee  was  an  objection  which  I  made,  but  was 
answered,  they  could  not  fix  upon  any  other  person  who  they 
thought  was  so  likely  to  succeed  as  he  was,  and  should  he  suc- 
ceed and  not  be  permitted  to  reside  in  any  of  the  United  States, 
it  would  be  an  easy  matter  for  any  other  gentleman  who  was 
not  obnoxious  to  the  pozvers  that  be,  to  be  consecrated  by  him  at 
Halifax.  And  as  to  the  objection  of  not  consulting  the  Clergy 
of  the  other  States,  the  time  would  not  allow  of  it,  and  there 
was  nobody  to  consult  in  the  State  of  New  York,  for  there 
is  not  one  Clergyman  there  except  refugees,  and  they  were  con- 
sulted. And  in  the  State  of  Connecticut  there  are  fourteen 
Clergymen.  And  in  your  State  and  New  Hampshire,  you 
know  how  many  there  are,  and  you  know  there  is  no  compul- 
sion in  the  matter,  and  you  will  be  left  to  act  as  you  please, 
either  to  be  subject  to  him  or  not.  As  to  the  matter  of  his 
support,  that  must  be  an  after  consideration. 

Your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

D.  Fogg. 

Pomfret,  August  i,  1783." 


THE   ELECTION    TO   THE   EPISCOPATE.  I9I 

It  is  stated  by  Dr.  Beardsley  (p.  78)  that  the  Clergy  who 
met  at  Woodbury  ''  selected  two  persons,  the  Rev.  Jeremiah 
Leaming  and  the  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  as  suitable,  either  of 
them,  to  go  to  England  and  obtain,  if  possible.  Episcopal  con- 
secration." No  evidence  is  offered  in  support  of  this  state- 
ment; but  it  is,  I  presume,  substantially  correct,  being  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  general  tradition.  The  papers,  in  regard 
to  the  appHcation  make  no  mention  of  any  name  but  that  of 
Dr.  Seabury,  nor  do  the  letters  of  Mr.  Fogg.  But  it  is  quite 
natural  that  the  Convention  should  have  determined  upon 
the  designation  of  whichever  one  of  two  mentioned  should  ac- 
cept the  trust :  and  the  ascertainment  of  this  point  appears  to 
have  been  left  to  the  Secretary  who  was  commissioned  to  go 
to  New  York,  where  both  of  these  Clergymen  then  were,  and 
to  put  the  papers  necessary  for  use  into  their  final  form,  in- 
serting the  name  of  the  one  who  accepted  the  election/ 
Which  of  these  two  was  really  the  first  choice  of  the  Con- 
necticut clergy,  in  the  sense  of  being,  so  far  as  their  feelings 
were  concerned,  the  person  preferred,  matters  very  little,  except 
in  so  far  as  the  real  truth  of  history  is  always  interesting. 
Bishop  Perry  has  expressed  his  conviction  that  this  honour 
belongs  to  Dr.  Seabury.  Dr.  Beardsley  stoutly  holds  for  Dr. 
Leaming.^  If  I  might  venture  to  have  an  opinion  in  such 
presence,  it  would  be  that  the  Connecticut  clergy  regarded 
Seabury  as  the  man  for  the  place,  but  had  so  much  respect 
for  Leaming,  and  held  such  relations  to  him  as  their  fellow 
Presbyter  in  Connecticut,  that  they  were  unwilling  to  seem 
to  overlook  him ;  and  that  accordingly  they  elected  Sea- 
bury with  the  understanding  that  the  position  should  be  first 
offered  to  Leaming  before  that  election  should  take  effect: 
there  being  good  grounds  to  anticipate  that  Leaming  would 

7.  See    Bishop    Seabury's    letter    to    the    Secretary    of    the    Society, 
February  27,  1785;  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  172. 

8.  "The  Living  Church,"  August  2J,   1881. 


192  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

decline  to  serve:  although  of  course  the  offer  would  be  made 
in  good  faith,  and  the  Secretary  would  be  empowered  to  give 
effect  to  it  if  necessary.  I  doubt  whether  the  true  spirit  and 
intent  of  the  action  in  relation  to  Dr.  Leaming  can  be  better 
indicated  than  in  the  words  which  Dr.  Beardsley  used  before 
his  discussion  with  Bishop  Perry  arose,  the  italics  being  mine : 
"  There  was  good  reason  for  giving  him  the  opportunity  to 
decline."  » 

The  proceeding  which  has  been  now  described  has  at  times 
been  referred  to  in  language  which  apparently  honours  it 
not  cheerfully  but  grudgingly  and  of  necessity;  language 
which  not  so  much  raises  the  question  whether  it  were  an 
election,  as  assumes  that  question  to  have  been  decided  in  the 
negative. 

Mr.  Fogg's  letters  state  that  the  clergy  had  "  pitched  upon 
Dr.  Seabury  as  the  most  proper  person  for  this  purpose," 
and  that  it  was  said  among  them  that  ^'  they  could  not  fix 
upon  any  person  so  likely  to  succeed  as  he  was."  The  letter 
of  the  Secretary  to  the  Archbishop  of  York,  speaks  of  Dr. 
Seabury  as  the  person  whom  the  Connecticut  clergy  "  have 
prevailed  upon  to  offer  himself  for  consecration."  The  tes- 
timonial signed  by  Leaming  and  others  speak  of  him  as 
embarking  "  at  the  earnest  request  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of 
Connecticut "  to  present  himself  for  consecration. 

These  phrases  indicate  the  determination  between  different 
persons,  the  selecting  from  a  number  for  any  use  or  office, 
which  constitutes  choice  or  election;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see 
the  point  which,  in  some  minds,  discriminates  this  election 
from  any  other  election  to  the  Episcopate,  so  far  as  the  nature 
of  the  act  is  concerned  —  or,  for  that  matter,  so  far  as  its 
authority  is  concerned,  although  these  are  separate  questions. 
Judging  the  transaction  by  the  evidence,   the  necessity   for 

9.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  p.  79. 


THE   ELECTION    TO   THE   EPISCOPATE.  I93 

Speaking  of  it,  as  not  exactly  an  election,  but  rather  a  desig- 
nation; as,  perhaps  not  in  entire  conformity  with  Catholic 
usage;  as,  the  action  of  individuals  rather  than  a  regidar  ec- 
clesiastical proceeding  —  is  not  apparent.  Of  course  it  was 
not  an  election  by  Dean  and  Chapter  in  pursuance  of  conge 
d'elire  and  letter  missive,  and  under  penalty  of  praemunire ; 
nor  by  a  body  of  delegates  appointed  for  the  purpose  by  in- 
corporated parishes ;  but  it  was  an  election  nevertheless.  And, 
as  the  word  election  is  the  technical  word  to  express  the 
selecting  of  a  person  to  be  presented  for  consecration  as 
Bishop,  the  word  election  is  as  properly  to  be  used  with  refer- 
ence to  the  first  Bishop  of  Connecticut  as  to  any  other  Bishop. 

Nor  does  the  fact  that  the  election  was  of  one  of  two  per- 
sons named  change  its  character.  The  election  of  two  to  be, 
one  or  the  other,  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  as  might  be  de- 
termined by  a  designated  contingency,  is  as  much  an  election 
(supposing  it  to  be  proved  that  such  zvas  the  manner  of  it) 
as  the  election  of  either  alone  could  have  been.  The  devise 
of  an  estate  to  one  of  two  persons  who  should  first  signify 
his  acceptance  of  it  on  certain  conditions,  would  be  as  much  a 
devise  as  if  to  one  alone.  An  alternate  delegate  to  General 
Convention  is  as  much  elected  as  the  principal  whose  vacant 
place  he  is  called  to  fill.  In  short,  the  will  of  those  who  acted 
concurred  in  the  choice  of  whichever  of  these  two  men  should 
be  found  to  have  been  prepared  and  disposed  by  Providence 
to  accept  the  trust,  and  on  that  one  the  election  took  effect. 

If,  however,  disparagement  of  this  election  regarded  only 
the  question  of  its  harmony  with  mere  formalities,  it  would 
hardly  be  worth  noticing.  But  it  acquires  some  show  of 
importance  from  the  bearing  which  the  election  of  a  Bishop 
has  upon  the  settlement  of  his  jurisdiction  over  the  particular 
district  or  field  for  which  he  is  consecrated:  and  thus  it  is 
necessary  that  this  election  should  have  justice  done  to  it. 

The  distinction,  inherent  in  the  Church  system,  between 


194  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Order  and  jurisdiction;  the  former  being  the  power  to  exe- 
cute the  functions  of  the  ministry,  and  the  latter  the  lawful 
right  to  exercise  that  power,  makes  it  obvious  that  something 
beside  Consecration  to  the  Episcopate  is  necessary  to  consti- 
tute the  person  consecrated  the  lawful  Bishop  of  the  Church 
in  a  certain  field  or  district.  And  the  inquiry  as  to  what  that 
thing  is,  does  not  in  every  case  admit  of  the  same  answer. 

In  the  settled  state  of  affairs  in  which  we  now  live,  the 
inquiry  is  of  course  easy  to  answer;  for  our  common  Consti- 
tution provides  that  in  every  Diocese  the  Bishop  shall  be 
chosen  agreeably  to  rules  prescribed  by  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese;  and  therefore  a  Bishop,  however  valid  might  be  his 
consecration,  would  not  have  the  lawful  right  to  exercise  his 
office  as  the  Bishop  of  a  Diocese  which  had  not  so  chosen 
him.  But  in  revolutionary  or  transitional  periods,  when  there 
is  no  such  settled  rule  in  any  particular  district  and  when,  as 
in  the  case  before  us,  the  rule,  which  had  hitherto  been  acted 
on,  had  been  withdrawn  —  and  practically  repealed  —  it  would 
only  be  necessary  to  conform  as  far  as  possible  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Church  Catholic  —  such  principles,  that  is,  as 
were  recognized  in  the  Church  prior  to  the  adoption  of  special 
rules. 

This  was  what  the  Connecticut  men  did.  In  the  absence 
of  any  local  regulation  binding  upon  them,  they  fell  back 
upon  the  general  principle  that  the  Clergy  were  bound  to 
provide  for  the  needs  of  the  people  committed  to  them ;  and 
as  they  had  done,  and  were  doing  for  them,  everything  except 
that  which  a  Bishop  alone  could  do,  they  proceeded  to  pro- 
vide for  this  need  also,  by  choosing  a  man  to  receive  consecra- 
tion for  the  Episcopate.  This,  certainly  —  there  being  no 
law  to  the  contrary  —  was  all  that  was  necessary  to  give  the 
Bishop,  who  should  be  lawfully  consecrated  for  them,  a  law- 
ful jurisdiction  over  them;  and,  as  they  had  jurisdiction  over 
the  members  of  the  Church  in  which  they  had  been  lawfully 


THE   ELECTION    TO   THE   EPISCOPATE.  195 

settled,  jurisdiction  over  them  involved  also  jurisdiction  over 
their  people. 

In  fact  the  jurisdiction  as  well  as  the  Orders  of  the  first 
Bishop  of  Connecticut  will  stand  the  test  of  every  recognized 
general  principle  of  the  law  of  the  Church  pertaining  to  them. 
The  question  of  Orders  belongs  to  a  later  period :  the  question 
of  jurisdiction  arises  here  by  reason  of  its  connection  with  the 
matter  of  election. 

If  we  lay  aside  the  claims  of  the  Papacy,  which  have  no 
bearing  within  the  limits  of  our  subject,  there  are  but  three 
ways  in  which  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  can  be  established; 
viz.  either  by  the  assignment  of  the  Bishops  by  whose  con- 
sent he  is  consecrated,  or  by  the  choice  and  acceptance  of 
clergy  and  people,  or  by  the  sanction  of  the  civil  authority 
ruling  over  the  district  in  which  he  is  to  be  settled. 

In  the  earliest  times  those  who  conferred  the  Episcopal 
Office  assigned  the  district  in  which  it  was  to  be  exercised,^^ 
and  as  this  would  be  necessary  in  planting  the  Church  among 
the  heathen,  so  it  would  always  be  lawful  when  such  assign- 
ment did  not  interfere  with  a  previous  settlement  made  by 
competent  authority. 

In  later  times  elections  prevailed,  sometimes  by  clergy  or 
people,  sometimes  by  both.  And  because  this,  in  the  times  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  led  to  turbulence,  and  in  some  sad  cases 
to  riot,  and  even  bloodshed,  the  Emperors  seem  to  have  taken 
to  themselves  the  right  to  appoint  to  Sees ;  and  thus  the  right 
came  to  be  claimed  and  exercised  generally  in  Christian  coun- 
tries by  the  civil  authority.^^ 

10.  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set 
in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  Elders  in  every  city, 
as  I  had  appointed  thee."     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  Titus,  I,  5. 

11.  Cf.  "A  View  of  the  Elections  of  Bishops  in  the  Primitive 
Church"  by  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Edinburgh,  1728  — 
probably  the  learned  Dr.  Thomas  Rattray,  sometime  Bishop  of  Dun- 
kel4. 


196  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Now  all  these  things  concurred,  cither  explicitly  or  implic- 
itly, to  establish  the  jurisdiction  of  the  first  Bishop  of  Con- 
necticut. For  he  was  consecrated  for  his  particular  district 
by  Bishops  who  had  the  same  right  that  all  Bishops  have  to 
take  care  of  the  good  of  the  Church  in  those  places  where  no 
established  order  of  succession  exists;  he  was  duly  chosen  by 
the  clergy  before  his  consecration,  and  unanimously  and  heart- 
ily received  by  the  whole  body  of  the  Church  laity  of  the 
district  after  his  consecration;  and,  lastly,  his  residence  as  a 
Bishop  in  that  district  was  sanctioned  by  the  Civil  Authority, 
not  merely  by  acquiescence  and  failure  to  eject  him,  but  be- 
yond this,  by  fair  inclusion  within  the  purview  of  an  Act  of 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  understood  at  the 
time,  and  by  those  whose  votes  contributed  to  the  passing  of 
it,  as  implying  the  full  concurrence  of  the  civil  authority  in 
the  residence  of  a  Bishop  within  that  State,  as  being  essential 
to  the  ecclesiastical  body  to  which  he  belonged.^-  And  so 
every  requirement  of  general  application  ever  recognized  in 

12.  The  committee  of  the  Connecticut  Convention  appointed  to 
confer  with  leading  members  of  both  Houses  of  Assembly  as  to  the 
attitude  of  the  civil  government  in  respect  to  the  question  of  the 
settlement  of  a  Bishop  in  Connecticut,  were  assured  that  the  Act 
already  passed  by  the  Legislature  comprehended  all  the  legal  rights 
and  powers  intended  to  be  given  by  their  Constitution  to  any  de- 
nomination of  Christians,  and  included  all  that  was  wanted  for  the 
allowance  of  a  Bishop  within  the  State.  "We  now  understand,"  say 
the  Committee  after  this  conference,  "  as  we  suppose,  the  part  which 
the  government  established  among  us  means  to  take  in  respect  of 
religion  in  general,  and  the  protection  it  will  afford  to  the  different 
denominations  of  Christians  under  which  the  subjects  of  it  are  classed, 
and  the  lowest  construction,  which  is  all  we  expect,  must  amount  to 
a  permission  that  the  Episcopal  Church  enjoy  all  the  requisites  of 
her  polity,  and  have  a  Bishop  to  reside  among  them."  (Letter  of 
Rev.  Messrs.  Leaming,  Jarvis  and  Hubbard  to  Dr.  Seabury.  Hawks 
and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Documents,  H,  224,  226.) 


THE    ELECTION    TO   THE    EPISCOPATE.  I97 

the  Church  as  essential  to  the  estabHshment  of  Episcopal  ju- 
risdiction, except  within  the  confines  of  the  Papal  obedience, 
was  duly  complied  with  in  his  case. 

With  regard  to  the  influence  of  the  action  which  has  been 
now  commemorated  upon  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
Church  in  this  country,  it  is  worth  while  to  observe  that  it 
preceded  every  movement  in  which  members  of  the  Church 
combined  for  its  general  organization;  the  first  of  these  not 
being  before  May,  1784,  and  this  and  others  being  only  tenta- 
tive; and  to  add,  besides,  that  when  the  movement  for  the 
completion  of  the  Church  by  the  addition  of  the  Episcopate 
began  in  other  parts  of  the  country  —  which  was  not  before 
this  venture  had  been  seen  to  succeed  —  it  took  distinctly  the 
form  of  the  pattern  set  by  the  Church  in  Connecticut;  the 
persons  chosen  for  the  Episcopate  being  chosen  not  by  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Churches  in  all  the  States,  but  by  the 
action  of  the  Church  in  particular  States,  each  for  itself,  as 
in  the  choice  by  New  York  of  a  Bishop  for  New  York,  and  in 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  and  afterward  in  the  other  States 
in  like  manner.^^  So  that  the  pattern  set  in  Connecticut  of  a 
Church  complete  in  itself,  was,  in  fact,  followed  by  the 
Church  in  every  State;  and  the  ultimate  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  1789  became  the  action,  not  of  a  confused  multi- 
tude of  Churchmen  throughout  the  country,  but  of  Churches 
duly  constituted,  and  either  perfectly  organized  or  in  process 
of  becoming  so  organized :  the  Churches  in  the  several  States, 
though  in  some  cases  still  temporarily  deprived  of  their  Dio- 
cesans, holding  practically  the  position  of  the  co-ordinate  Sees 
of  the  Primitive  Church  —  no  one  subordinate  to  another, 
but  all  bound  by  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  by  the  duty  of 

13.  See  the  Plan  for  obtaining  consecration  of  Bishops,  adopted  in 
General  Convention  Session  of  1785  —  October  5th.  Bioren's  Ed. 
Journals  of  General  Convention,  pp.  11,  12. 


198  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

subordination  on  the  part  of  the  individual  Bishops  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  Episcopate  —  and,  as  such,  being  free  to 
associate  themselves  by  mutual  agreement,  as  they  actually  did, 
into  a  more  formal  and  specific  Union. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
ILLUSIONS. 

1783-1784. 

NOTHING  seems  to  be  more  noticeable  in  the  quest 
for  Episcopacy  which  we  are  following,  than  the 
extreme  simplicity  which  characterized  the  seekers, 
and  which  made  them  the  sport  of  the  astute  politicians  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  with  whom  they  had  to  deal.  They  sought 
to  partake  of  the  treasure  which  was  held  in  trust  for  them  as 
well  as  others :  but  the  policy  of  the  possessors  was  to  keep 
the  seekers  seeking. 

There  is  nothing  very  remarkable  about  this:  it  is  merely 
the  way  of  the  world.  What  is  remarkable,  is  that  the  seek- 
ers should  have  been  so  simple  as  to  imagine  the  possibility 
of  anything  else.  They  lived  under  illusions.  They  saw 
what  did  not  exist.  They  measured  the  possessors  by  their 
own  standards  of  mercy  and  justice;  and  could  not  suppose 
that  they  would  act  otherwise  than  as  they  believed  they  them- 
selves would  act  in  a  similar  situation.  It  took  their  repre- 
sentative sixteen  months  to  realize  that  he  had  been  "  amused, 
if  not  deceived" ;  that  the  seekers  were  being  systematically 
treated  as  what  they  were  —  simple  folk  who  believed  that  to 
do  justice  and  love  mercy  was  as  natural,  and  seemed  as 
obligatory,  to  others  as  it  did  to  them;  and  that  if  laws  stood 
in  the  way  of  mercy  and  justice  those  laws  ought  to  be 
changed :  and,  O  simplicity  of  simplicities !  they  actually  be- 
lieved that  those   laws   would  be  changed   for   the   sake   of 

199 


200  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

mercy  and  justice.  They  were  slow  to  realize  that  the  only 
way  to  (leal  with  those  who  with  such  patient  simulation  of 
desire  to  satisfy  them  were  determined  to  ignore  their  wishes, 
was  to  get  what  they  sought  from  other  possessors  of  the 
same  treasure  who  would  not  allow  themselves  to  be  hindered 
by  laws  which  precluded  mercy  and  justice.  At  last  they 
learned  that  lesson ;  and  behold,  as  soon  as  they  had  acted  on 
it,  the  wheels  of  policy  began  to  turn  in  another  direction ;  and 
not  long  after  the  law  was  changed  so  that  mercy  and  justice 
could  be  done  without  contravening  law.  But  it  was  of 
course  too  late  to  benefit  them,  and  it  was  only  to  their  dis- 
illusionment in  this  respect  that  they  owed  the  success  which 
they  had  in  another  quarter. 

These  simple  ones  were  also  under  another  illusion.  They 
saw  in  the  mild  monarch  who  loved  the  Church  of  England 
as  much  as  his  grandfather  hated  it,^  a  cheerful  readiness  to 
dispense  with  the  necessity  of  administering  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance In  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop  to  reside  In  a  foreign 
State.  They  saw  what  did  not  exist :  for  the  monarch  had  his 
non  possumus  as  completely  committed  to  memory  as  the 
Bishops  had.     The  law  prevented  him  as  well  as  them. 

But  at  least,  said  the  simple  ones,  whatever  may  be  the  Issue 
of  our  confidence  in  these  particulars,  we  have  one  anchor 
sure  and  steadfast,  our  hope  In  which  can  never  be  removed. 
The  Venerable  Society  for  propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
parts,  which  has  been  the  tender  guardian  of  the  Church  In 
Connecticut  these  many  years;  which  has  supported  the  weak 
hands  and  strengthened  the  feeble  knees  of  those  whose  lives 
were  devoted  to  the  benefit  of  that  Church;  which  has  been 
Instant  in  season,  out  of  season,  in  the  effort  to  obtain  the 
completion  of  the  Church  in  America  by  the  supply  of  the 
Episcopate;  which   sees  now  the  even  greater  needs  of  the 

I.  Cf.     Dr.  Berkeley's  letter  —  p.  127,  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury. 


ILLUSIONS.  201 

Church  in  America,  and  the  absolute  dependence  of  her  Mis- 
sionaries upon  it  for  the  continuance  of  a  support,  the  with- 
drawal of  which  would  reduce  them  to  poverty  —  this  great 
Society  will  not  now  desert  us,  but  will  continue  that  tender 
solicitude  for  our  interests  which  it  has  so  long  manifested 
in  our  behalf.  But  here  too  they  saw  what  did  not  exist. 
The  interest  which  had  been  manifested  had  not  been  only 
for  the  Church  as  the  institution  of  Christ,  but  eminently  for 
the  Church  as  an  institution  of  the  British  Empire.  The 
Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts, 
duly  fortified  by  its  Charter,  had  its  7ion  possumiis  ready  too : 
it  could  not  minister  to  the  needs  of  the  Church  in  a  State 
independent  of  Great  Britain,  because  it  zvas  foreign. 

So  the  illusions  were  all  dissipated  at  last ;  and  the  seekers, 
discerning  the  facts  as  they  were,  perceived  that  they  must 
obtain  the  treasure  which  they  sought  from  those  who  had 
nothing  but  that  treasure  to  impart;  and  that  they  must  be 
content  to  receive  it  without  any  recognition  from,  and  with 
the  cold  disapproval  of  those  from  whom,  as  they  conceived, 
both  their  duty  and  their  affection  had  led  them  to  seek  it. 

The  story  of  that  sixteen  months,  from  the  arrival  in  Lon- 
don of  the  Bishop  Elect  on  the  7th  of  July,  1783,  to  his 
departure  for  Scotland  about  the  same  time  in  the  month  of 
November,  1784,  is  one  of  the  most  sickening  that  can  be 
conceived.  It  has  been  often  related,  and  no  where  more 
fully  and  plainly  than  in  the  life  of  Bishop  Seabury  by  Dr. 
Beardsley,  who,  with  his  usual  painstaking  detail  has  given 
all  the  correspondence,  and  recorded  all  the  events  which  are 
of  chief  importance  in  it.  As  I  had  the  pleasure  to  loan  him 
all  of  the  Bishop's  manuscripts  relating  to  this  matter  I  have 
little  now  to  contribute  in  addition  to  what  he  has  already 
published,  and  therefore  avail  myself  of  the  convenience  of  his 
valuable  book.  All  that  need  be  done  here,  for  the  contin- 
uity of  this  narrative,  is  merely  to  relate  the  sequence  of  pro- 


202  MEMOIR   OF    RlSllOr    SEABURY. 

cccdiiig-s,  and  to  show  what  the  course  of  the  subject  of  this 
memoir  was  in  the  discharge  of  that  commission  which  had 
])ccn  entrusted  to  him.  So  far  as  his  personal  hfe  (hiring 
this  period  is  concerned  there  seems  to  be  nothing  which 
throws  any  hght  upon  it.  All  that  apparently  survives,  is  the 
account  which  from  time  to  time  he  gave  in  writing  to  those 
who  had  commissioned  him,  and  to  others  who  were  inter- 
ested in  his  movements,  of  the  several  steps  which  he  took  in 
the  performance  of  his  duty.  The  only  point  of  personal  in- 
terest in  the  process  seems  to  have  been  his  poverty,  and  the 
straits  to  which  he  was  put  in  the  endeavour  to  maintain 
himself  long  enough  to  carry  on  the  siege  which  he  had 
undertaken :  for  his  mission  was  entirely  at  his  own  cost ;  and 
in  it  he  more  than  expended  all  that  he  had.  One  of  the 
means  by  which  he  sought  to  make  provision  for  his  needs, 
was  the  effort  to  procure  some  compensation  from  the  Gov- 
ernment for  his  services  and  losses  in  its  behalf  during  the 
War,  an  account  of  which  has  already  been  given  in  a  previ- 
ous chapter.  All  the  rest  of  the  written  evidence  which  re- 
mains of  the  course  which  he  pursued  seems  to  relate  simply 
to  the  discharge  of  his  mission. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  letter  of  the  Rev^.  Mr. 
Fogg,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Connecticut  Convention  at 
Woodbury,  which  has  been  previously  quoted,  states  that  the 
Clergy  of  that  State,  after  consultation  with  clergymen  in 
New  York,  had  unanimously  agreed  to  send  Dr.  Seabury  to 
England  to  obtain  consecration;  and  that  they  had  instructed 
him,  if  he  could  not  obtain  consecration  in  England,  to  seek 
it  in  Scotland ;  and  that  Dr.  Seabury  had  already  sailed.  Dr. 
Seabury  is  spoken  of  in  Mr.  Fogg's  letter  as  highly  recom- 
mended, and  the  credentials  which  he  carried  with  him  were 
very  full  and  explicit  in  regard  to  his  fitness  for  the  Office 
which  he  was  sent  to  seek ;  and  it  is  proper  to  say  here,  once 
for  all,  that  no  personal  objection  was  ever  made  against  him 


ILLUSIONS.  203 

by  those  from  whom  he  sought  consecration,  and  that  all  the 
objections  which  were  made  by  them  to  his  consecration  were 
such  only  as  would  have  applied  to  any  applicant  under  the 
same  circumstances.  In  other  words  they  all  related  to  the 
propriety  of  the  consecration,  and  none  of  them  to  the  pro- 
priety of  consecrating  him  if  consecration  were  to  be  deter- 
mined upon. 

On  the  15th  of  July,  1783,  he  reports  from  London  to 
those  who  had  elected  him  that,  having  arrived  on  the  7th 
inst.,  and  having  failed  of  an  interview  with  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York  who  had  left  the  city  a  fortnight  before,  he 
had  waited  on  the  Bishop  of  London,  from  whom  he  had  met 
with  a  cordial  reception.  "  He  heartily  approved,"  continues 
the  writer,  "  of  the  scheme,  and  wished  success  to  it,  and 
declared  his  readiness  to  concur  with  the  two  Archbishops  in 
carrying  it  into  execution :  but  I  soon  found  he  was  not  dis- 
posed to  take  the  lead  in  the  matter.  He  mentioned  the 
State  Oaths  in  the  Ordination  offices,  as  impediments,  but 
supposed  that  the  King's  dispensation  would  be  a  sufficient 
warrant  for  the  Archbishops  to  proceed  upon.  But  upon 
conversing  with  His  Grace  of  Canterbury,  I  found  his  opin- 
ion rather  different  from  the  Bishop  of  London.  He  received 
me  politely,  approved  of  the  measure,  saw  the  necessity  of  it, 
and  would  do  all  he  could  to  carry  it  into  execution.  But  he 
must  proceed  openly  and  with  candor.  His  Majesty's  dis- 
pensation he  feared  would  not  be  sufficient  to  justify  the 
omission  of  oaths  imposed  by  act  of  Parliament.  He  would 
consult  the  other  Bishops ;  he  would  advise  with  those  per- 
sons on  whose  judgment  he  thought  he  could  depend.  He 
was  glad  to  hear  the  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  and 
wished  to  know  the  sentiments  of  the  Archbishop  of  York. 
He  foresaw  great  difficulties,  but  hoped  there  were  none  of 
them  insurmountable."  ^ 

2.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  106,  107. 


204  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

On  the  lolh  of  August  following,  continuing  the  account  of 
his  proceedings,  the  writer  reports  that  he  had  visited  York, 
in  order  that  he  might  have  the  full  benefit  of  the  Archbishop's 
advice  and  influence.  *'  This  journey,"  he  says,  **  I  have  ac- 
complished, and  I  fear  to  very  little  purpose.  His  Grace  is 
now  carrying  on  a  correspondence  with  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  on  the  subject;  what  the  issue  will  be  is  not  cer- 
tain ;  but  I  think,  unless  matters  can  be  put  on  a  different 
footing,  the  business  will  not  succeed.  Both  the  Archbishops 
are  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  supplying  the  States  of 
America  with  Bishops,  if  it  be  intended  to  preserve  the  Epis- 
copal Church  there;  and  they  even  seem  sensible  of  the  jus- 
tice of  the  present  application,  but  they  are  exceedingly  em- 
barrassed by  the  following  difficulties : 

1.  That  it  would  be  sending  a  bishop  to  Connecticut,  which 
they  have  no  right  to  do  without  the  consent  of  the  State. 

2.  That  the  bishop  would  not  be  received  in  Connecticut. 

3.  That  there  would  be  no  adequate  support  for  him. 

4.  That  the  oaths  in  the  ordination  office  cannot  be  got 
over,  because  the  king's  dispensation  would  not  be  sufficient 
to  justify  the  omission  of  those  oaths.  At  least  there  must 
be  the  concurrence  of  the  king's  council  to  the  omission;  and 
that  the  council  w^ould  not  give  their  concurrence  without  the 
permission  of  the  State  of  Connecticut  to  the  bishop's  resid- 
ing among  them. 

All  that  I  could  say  had  no  effect,  and  I  had  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity of  saying  all  that  I  wished  to  say. 

It  now  remains  to  be  considered  what  method  shall  be 
taken  to  obtain  the  wished-for  Episcopate. 

The  matter  here  will  become  public.  It  will  soon  get  to 
Connecticut.  Had  you  not,  gentlemen,  better  make  immediate 
application  to  the  State  for  permission  to  have  a  bishop  reside 
there?  Should  you  not  succeed,  you  lose  nothing,  as  I  am 
pretty  confident  you  will  not  succeed  here  without  such  con- 


ILLUSIONS.  205 

sent.  Should  there  be  anything  personal  with  regard  to  me, 
let  it  not  retard  the  matter.  I  will  most  readily  give  up 
my  pretensions  to  any  person  who  shall  be  agreeable  to  you, 
and  less  exceptionable  to  the  State. 

You  can  make  the  attempt  with  all  the  strength  you  can 
muster  among  the  laity:  and  at  the  same  time  I  would  ad- 
vise that  some  persons  be  sent  to  try  the  State  of  Vermont  on 
this  subject.  In  the  meantime  I  will  try  to  prepare  and  get 
things  in  a  proper  train  here.  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  get 
at  the  Duke  of  Portland  and  Lord  North,  on  the  occasion, 
and  should  you  succeed  in  either  instance,  I  think  all  diffi- 
culty would  be  at  an  end."  ^ 

To  Mr.  Leaming,  from  91  Wardour  Street,  London,  Sep- 
tember 3,  1783,  the  account  is  continued: 

"  With  regard  to  my  success,  I  do  not  only  think  it  doubt- 
ful, but  that  the  probability  is  against  it.  Nobody  here  will 
risk  anything  for  the  sake  of  the  Church,  or  for  the  sake  of 
continuing  Episcopal  ordination  in  America.  Unless  there- 
fore it  can  be  made  a  ministerial  affair,  none  of  the  bishops 
will  proceed  in  it  for  fear  of  clamor;  and  indeed  the  ground 
on  which  they  at  present  stand,  seems  to  me  so  uncertain, 
that  I  believe  they  are  obliged  to  take  great  care  with  regard 
to  any  step  they  take  out  of  the  common  road.  They  are 
apprehensive  that  my  consecration  would  be  looked  on  in  the 
light  of  sending  a  bishop  to  Connecticut,  and  that  the  State  of 
Connecticut  would  resist  it,  and  that  they  should  be  censured 
as  meddlers  in  matters  that  do  not  concern  them.  This  is  the 
great  reason  why  I  wish  that  the  State  of  Connecticut  should 
be  applied  to  for  their  consent.  Without  it,  I  think  nothing 
will  be  done.  If  they  refuse,  the  whole  matter  is  at  an  end. 
If  they  consent  that  a  bishop  should  reside  among  them,  the 
grand  obstacle   will  be  removed.     You  see  the  necessity  of 

3.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  108,  109. 


206  MEMOIR   OF    lilSUOP    SEABURY. 

making  the  attempt,  and  of  making  it  with  vigor.  One  rea- 
son, indeed,  why  I  wished  the  attempt  to  be  made  in  Con- 
necticut, related  to  myself.  1  cannot  continue  here  long: 
necessity  will  oblige  me  to  leave  it  in  March  or  April,  at 
furthest.  If  this  business  fails,  I  must  try  to  get  some  pro- 
vision made  for  myself:  and  indeed  the  State  of  Connecticut 
may  consent  that  a  bishop  should  reside  among  them,  though 
they  might  not  consent  that  I  should  be  the  man.  In  that 
case,  the  sooner  I  shall  know  it  the  better:  and  should  that 
be  the  case,  I  beg  that  no  clergyman  in  Connecticut  will  hesi- 
tate a  moment  on  my  account.  The  point  is,  to  get  the 
Episcopal  authority  into  that  country ;  and  he  shall  have  every 
assistance  in  my  power. 

Something  should  also  be  said  about  the  means  of  support 
for  a  bishop  in  that  country.  The  bishops  here  are  appre- 
hensive that  the  character  will  sink  into  contempt,  unless  there 
be  some  competent  and  permanent  fund  for  its  support. 
Please  let  your  opinion  of  what  ought  to  be  said  on  that  sub- 
ject be  communicated  by  the  first  opportunity,  that  is,  pro- 
vided you  think  anything  can  be  done  in  Connecticut. 

Dr.  Chandler's  appointment  to  Nova  Scotia  will,  I  believe, 
succeed.  And  possibly  he  may  go  there  this  autumn,  or  at 
least,  early  in  the  spring.  But  his  success  will  do  no  good  in 
the  States  of  America.  His  hands  will  be  as  much  tied  as 
the  bishops  in  England;  and  I  think  he  will  run  no  risks  to 
communicate  the  Episcopal  powers.  There  is,  therefore, 
everything  depending  on  the  success  of  the  application  to  the 
State  of  Connecticut.  It  must  be  made  quickly,  lest  the  dis- 
senters here  should  interpose  and  prevent  it;  and  it  should  be 
made  with  the  united  efforts  of  clergy  and  laity,  that  its 
weight  may  be  the  greater;  and  its  issue  you  must  make  me 
acquainted  with  as  soon  as  you  can."  * 

4.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  no,  in. 


ILLUSIONS.  207 

The  main  objection  to  consecration,  it  will  have  been  ob- 
served, was  the  legal  obligation  of  the  person  consecrated  to 
take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  in  connection  with  the  Ordination 
Office.  But  the  impression  which  the  applicant  appears  to 
have  received  from  the  Archbishops  was  that  there  might  be 
a  concurrence  of  the  King's  Council  in  his  dispensing  with 
that  obligation,  if  there  was  the  permission  of  the  State  of 
Connecticut  that  a  Bishop  should  reside  there.  Of  course 
nobody  promised  anything.  Probably  nobody  intended  to 
perform  anything.  But  that  was  the  impression  given.  Ac- 
cordingly it  was  urged  upon  the  Clergy  that  they  should 
endeavour  to  procure  such  consent.  The  letters  of  the  appli- 
cant were  submitted  to  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  who  after 
conference  in  regard  to  them  in  a  Convention  held  at  Walling- 
ford,  appointed  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Leaming,  Jarvis  and  Hub- 
bard a  committee  to  confer  with  the  leading  members  of  both 
Houses  of  the  Assembly  then  sitting  at  New  Haven,  as  to 
such  of  the  anticipated  difficulties  as  had  reference  to  civil 
government:  and,  having  performed  its  function,  this  com- 
mittee described  the  result  in  a  letter  to  the  applicant  dated 
February  5th,  1784.  In  this  letter  the  committee  give  the 
sentiments  of  these  principal  members  as  follows: 

"  Your  right,  they  said,  is  unquestionable.  You  therefore 
have  our  full  concurrence  for  your  enjoyment  of  what  you 
judge  essential  to  your  Church.  Was  an  Act  of  Assembly 
expedient  to  your  complete  enjoyment  of  your  own  ecclesi- 
astical constitution,  we  would  freely  give  our  votes  for  such 
an  act.  We  have  passed  a  law  which  embraces  your  Church, 
wherein  are  comprehended  all  the  legal  rights  and  powers, 
intended  by  our  Constitution  to  be  given  to  any  denomination 
of  Christians.  In  that  act  is  included  all  that  you  want.  Let 
a  bishop  come;  by  that  act  he  will  stand  upon  the  same 
ground  that  the  rest  of  the  Clergy  do,  or  the  Church  at  large. 
It  was  remarked  that  there  were  some,  who  would  oppose 


208  MEMOIR   OF    131S110P    SEABURY. 

and  would  labor  to  excite  opposition  among  the  people,  who 
if  unalarmed  by  any  jealousies,  would  probably  remain  quiet. 
For  which  reason  it  would  be  impolicy,  both  in  us  and  them, 
for  the  Assembly  to  meddle  at  all  in  the  business.  The  intro- 
duction of  a  bishop  on  the  present  footing,  without  anything 
more,  in  their  opinion  would  be  the  easiest  and  securest  way 
in  which  it  could  be  done,  and  we  might  be  sure  of  his  pro- 
tection. This  they  thought  must  be  enough  to  satisfy  the 
bishops,  and  all  concerned  in  the  affair  in  England.  We  are 
further  authorized  to  say  that  the  legislature  of  the  State 
would  be  so  far  from  taking  umbrage,  that  the  more  liberal 
part  will  consider  the  bishops  in  this  transaction  as  maintain- 
ing entire  consistency  of  principle  and  character,  and  by  so 
doing  merit  their  commendation. 

The  act  above  alluded  to,  you  will  receive  in  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Leaming,  attested  by  the  clerk  of  the  lower  House  of 
Assembly.  It  is  not  yet  published.  The  clerk  was  so  obliging 
as  to  copy  it  from  the  journals  of  the  House.  You  were  men- 
tioned as  the  gentleman  we  had  pitched  upon.  The  Secretary 
of  the  State,  from  personal  knowledge,  and  others,  said  things 
honorable  and  benevolent  towards  you.  Now  if  the  opinion 
of  the  governor  and  other  members  of  the  council,  explicitly 
given  in  entire  agreement  with  the  most  respectable  members 
among  the  representatives,  who  must  be  admitted  to  be  com- 
petent judges  of  their  own  civil  polity,  is  reasonably  sufficient 
to  remove  all  scruples  about  the  concurrence  of  the  legisla- 
ture, we  cannot  imagine  that  objection  will  any  longer  have 
a  place  in  the  minds  of  the  Archbishops."  ^ 

A  copy  of  the  Act  of  the  Connecticut  legislature  has  been 
preserved  among  Bishop  Seabury's  papers.  It  cannot  be  the 
same  copy  which  was  submitted  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, because  that  copy  was  received  in  London  on  the  17th 

5.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  113,  114. 


ILLUSIONS.  209 

of  June,  1784,  and  this  is  officially  certified  August  6th  of 
that  year.  But  it  will  equally  serve  our  convenience,  if  we 
take  from  it  such  extracts  as  show  the  bearing  of  the  act 
upon  the  question  of  the  permission  of  the  State  to  have  a 
Bishop  settled  within  it. 

''  An  act  for  securing  the  rights  of  conscience  in  matters  of 
Religion  to  Christians  of  every  denomination  in  this  State. 

"  As  the  happiness  of  a  people  and  the  good  order  of  civil 
society,  essentially  depend  upon  Piety,  Religion  and  Morality, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  authority  to  provide  for  the  sup- 
port and  encouragement  thereof:  so  as  that  Christians  of 
every  denomination,  demeaning  themselves  peaceably,  and  as 
good  subjects  of  the  State,  may  be  equally  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Laws :  And  as  the  people  of  this  State  have  in 
general,  been  of  one  profession  on  matters  of  Faith,  Reli- 
gious Worship,  and  the  mode  of  settling  and  supporting  the 
Ministers  of  the  Gospel,  they  have  by  law  been  formed  into 
ecclesiastical  Societies,  for  the  more  convenient  support  of 
their  Worship  and  Ministry:  and  to  the  end  that  other  de- 
nominations of  Christians,  who  dissent  from  the  Worship  and 
Ministry  so  established  and  supported,  may  enjoy  free  lib- 
erty of  conscience  in  the  matters  aforesaid  — 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Governor,  Council  and  Representatives 
in  General  Court  assembled,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
same.  That  no  persons  in  this  State,  professing  the  Christian 
Religion,  who  soberly  and  conscientiously  dissent  from  the 
worship  and  ministry  by  Law  established  in  the  Society 
wherein  they  dwell,  and  attend  public  worship  by  themselves, 
shall  incur  any  penalty  for  not  attending  the  worship  and 
ministry  so  established,  on  the  Lords-Day,  or  on  account  of 
their  meeting  together  by  themselves  on  said  day,  for  public 
worship  in  a  way  agreeable  to  their  consciences. 

And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that 
all   denominations   of   Christians    differing   in   their    religious 


210  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOr    SEABURY. 

sentiments  from  the  people  of  the  Established  Societies  in 
this  State,  whether  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  or  those  Con- 
gregationalists  called  Separates,  or  the  people  called  Baptists, 
or  Quakers,  or  any  other  denomination  who  shall  have  formed 
themselves  into  distinct  Churches  or  Congregations,  and  at- 
tend public  worship,  and  support  the  Gospel  Ministry  in  a 
way  agreeable  to  their  consciences  and  respective  professions; 
and  all  persons  who  adhere  to  any  of  them,  and  dwell  so 
near  to  any  place  of  their  Worship,  that  they  can  and  do 
ordinarily  attend  the  same  on  the  Sabbath,  and  contribute 
their  due  proportion  to  the  support  of  the  Worship  and  Min- 
istry where  tliey  so  attend  .  .  .  every  such  person  shall 
be  exempted  from  being  taxed  for  the  support  of  the  Worship 
and  Ministry  of  said  Society,  so  long  as  he  or  they  shall 
continue  so  to  attend  and  support  public  worship  with  a  dif- 
ferent Church  or  Congregation  as  aforesaid. 

And  be  it  further  enacted  .  .  .  that  all  such  Protestant 
Churches  and  Congregations  as  dissent  from  the  Worship 
and  Ministry  established  as  aforesaid  and  who  maintain  and 
attend  public  worship  by  themselves,  shall  have  liberty  and 
authority  to  use  and  exercise  the  same  powers  and  privileges 
for  maintaining  and  supporting  their  respective  Ministers  and 
building  and  repairing  their  Meeting-Houses  for  the  public 
Worship  of  God,  as  the  Ecclesiastical  Societies,  constituted  by 
Act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  this  State  by  law  have  and 
do  exercise  and  enjoy;  and  in  the  same  manner  may  com- 
mence and  hold  their  meetings,  and  transact  their  affairs,  as 
occasion  may  require  for  the  purpose  aforesaid." 

On  the  back  of  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Dr.  Seabury  to  Dr. 
Cooper  of  August  31,  1784,  which  will  be  referred  to  later, 
is  a  memorandum  in  Dr.  Seabury 's  writing  which  seems  to 
have  escaped  the  eye  of  Dr.  Beardsley  in  his  inspection  of 
the  Seabury  Manuscripts,  and  which  shows  that  in  the  lapse 
of  a  year  since  the  four  objections  were  made  by  the  Arch- 


ILLUSIONS.  211 

bishops  and  transmitted  to  Connecticut,  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Ministry,  had  been 
able  to  discover  new  objections  to  the  consecration.  The 
memorandum  is  as  follows : 

**  Objections  made  to  the  Connecticut  Episcopate  by  the 
British  Ministry,  as  represented  to  Dr.  Seabury  by  his  Grace 
of  Cant,  the  beginning  of  Aug*^.  1784. 

1.  That  they  cannot  consent  that  a  Bp.  be  consecrated  for 
Connecticut,  till  the  N.  Scotia  Episcopate  be  settled. 

2.  Nor  unless  Congress  requested,  or,  at  least  acquiesced 
in  the  measure. 

3.  That  Conn*,  was  only  one  State  and  even  their  consent 
was  not  explicitly  declared. 

4.  That  the  application  was  only  from  the  Clergy  and  not 
from  the  Laity  in  Conn*. 

5.  That  the  Laity  of  the  Episcopal  Communion  in  America 
were  adverse  to  the  having  Bps.  resident  among  them. 

6.  That  the  Country  was  not  divided  into  Dioceses,  nor  any 
provision  made  for  Bps. 

7.  That  having  never  sent  Bps.  into  America  while  the  13 
States  were  subject  to  Great  Britain,  it  would  have  a  very 
suspicious  look  to  do  it  now,  and  would  probably  create,  or 
augment,  ill  will  in  that  Country  against  G.  B." 

Yet  in  one  way  or  other,  probably  through  some  communi- 
cation which  has  not  survived,  the  writers  of  the  Connecticut 
letter  had  evidently  been  made  aware  of  one  of  these  objec- 
tions, which  therefore  can  hardly  have  been  first  broached  at 
the  time  of  the  above  memorandum.  It  is  one  that  would 
occur  naturally  to  the  Erastianized  mind,  clerical  or  lay,  and 
so  was  very  likely  to  have  been  at  least  mentioned;  but  it 
was  one  which  was  difficult  for  those  to  appreciate  whose  cir- 
cumstances had  thrown  them  back  upon  the  radical  concep- 
tion of  the  Church  as  a  Divine  and  Spiritual  institution  essen- 
tially distinct  from  the  State.     **  We  feel  ourselves,"  say  the 


212  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

writers,  "  at  some  loss  for  a  reply  to  the  objeetion  which  re- 
lates to  the  limits  and  establishment  of  a  diocese,  because  the 
government  here  is  not  Episcopal ;  and  because  we  do  not 
conceive  a  civil  or  legal  limitation  and  establishment  of  a 
diocese,  essentially  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy,  or 
the  existence  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church.  The  Presbyters  who 
elect  the  Lishop,  and  the  congregations  to  which  they  min- 
ister, may  naturally  direct  his  active  superintendence,  and 
prescribe  the  acknowledged  boundaries  of  his  diocese."  *^ 

In  other  words,  their  conception  of  a  diocese  was  that  of 
the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  over  clergy  and  laity  in 
communion  with  him  through  the  Eaith  and  Sacraments  of 
Christ,  in  whatsoever  place,  and  under  whatsoever  circum- 
stances that  jurisdiction  might  be  exercised.  The  recognition 
of  State  limits  as  the  place  within  which  such  jurisdiction 
should  prevail,  was  one  which  grew  naturally  out  of  the 
obligation  of  individual  Churchmen  to  obey  the  civil  laws 
under  which  they  lived;  but  that  involved  no  right  on  the 
part  of  the  State  to  prescribe  diocesan  limits ;  much  less  any 
expectation  on  the  part  of  Churchmen  to  receive  the  benefit 
of  any  provision  made  for  them  by  the  State,  nor  any  privi- 
lege beyond  that  of  the  protection  of  the  civil  rights  which 
they  shared  with  all  their  fellow  citizens  of  what  religious 
persuasion  soever. 

But  this  objection  was  naturally  connected  with  the  idea  of 
what  was  deemed,  by  those  who  had  worldly  conceptions  of  the 
dignity  of  the  Episcopate,  necessary  pecuniary  provision  for 
the  maintenance  of  that  dignity.  As  to  this  too  the  answer  of 
the  Connecticut  Clergy  shows  the  spiritual  as  opposed  to  the 
worldly  conception  of  the  Episcopate: 

"  Under  existing  circumstances,  and  utterly  unable  to  judge 
with  any  certainty  what,  in  the  course  of  divine  providence, 

6.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.   114-115. 


ILLUSIONS.  213 

may  be  the  future  condition  of  the  Church  in  this  Country, 
we  can  contemplate  no  other  support  for  a  Bishop,  than  what 
is  to  be  derived  from  voluntary  contracts,  and  subscriptions 
and  contributions,  directed  by  the  good  will  and  zeal  of  the 
members  of  a  Church  who  are  taught,  and  do  believe,  that  a 
Bishop  is  the  chief  Minister  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  on 
earth.  Other  engagements,  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  enter 
into,  than  our  best  endeavors  to  obtain  what  our  people  can 
do,  and  we  trust  will  continue  to  do,  in  proportion  to  the  in- 
crease of  their  ability,  of  which  we  flatter  ourselves  with  some 
favorable  prospect.  A  Bishop  in  Connecticut  must,  in  some 
degree,  be  of  the  primitive  style.  With  patience  and  a  share 
of  primitive  zeal,  he  must  rest  for  support  on  the  Church 
which  he  serves,  as  head  in  her  ministrations,  unornamented 
with  temporal  dignity,  and  without  the  props  of  secular 
power."  '^ 

On  April  30,  1784,  Dr.  Seabury  acknowledges  this  letter  of 
the  Committee,  and  relates  his  use  of  it: 

"  I  have  communicated  your  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of 
York,  and  the  Bishops  of  London  and  Oxford;  the  last  did 
not  seem  to  think  it  quite  satisfactory,  but  said  the  letter  was 
a  good  one,  and  gave  him  an  advantageous  opinion  of  the 
gentlemen  who  wrote  it,  and  of  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut  in 
general;  and  that  it  was  worthy  of  serious  consideration. 
The  Bishop  of  London  thought  it  removed  all  the  difficulties 
on  your  side  of  the  water,  and  that  nothing  now  was  wanting 
but  an  Act  of  Parliament  to  dispense  with  the  State  oaths, 
and  he  imagined  that  would  be  easily  obtained.  The  Arch- 
bishop of  York  gave  no  opinion,  but  wished  I  would  lose  no 
time  in  showing  it  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury."  ^ 

7.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  p.   115. 

8.  Ibid.  118. 


214  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

On  IMay  3,  he  continues  the  account  relating  the  comments 
of  Canterbury  on  May  ist: 

"  His  Grace's  behaviour,  though  poHte,  I  thought  was  cool 
and  restrained.  When  he  had  read  the  letter,  he  observed 
that  it  was  still  the  application  only  of  the  Clergy,  and  that 
the  permission  was  only  the  permission  of  individuals,  and 
not  of  the  legislature.  I  observed  that  the  reasons  why  the 
legislature  had  not  been  applied  to  were  specified  in  the  letter, 
and  that  they  appeared  to  me  to  be  founded  in  reason  and 
good  sense  —  that  had  his  Grace  demanded  the  concurrence 
of  the  laity  of  the  Church  last  autumn,  it  might  easily  have 
been  procured.  That  it  was  the  first  wish  both  of  the  Epis- 
copal Clergy  and  laity  of  Connecticut  to  have  an  Episcopate 
through  the  clear  and  uninterrupted  channel  of  the  Church 
of  England  and  my  first  wish  that  his  Grace  and  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York  might  be  the  instruments  of  its  conveyance  — 
but  that  if  such  difficulties  and  objections  lay  in  the  way  as  it 
was  impossible  to  remove,  it  was  but  lost  time  for  me  to 
pursue  it  further;  but  that  I  hoped  his  Grace  would  converse 
with  the  Archbishop  of  York  and  the  Bishop  of  London  on 
the  subject.  He  said  he  would  but  that  he  was  then  very 
unwell.  I  thought  it  was  no  good  time  to  press  the  matter 
while  the  body  and  mind  were  not  in  proper  unison,  and  rose 
to  withdraw,  offering  to  leave  the  letter,  as  it  might  be 
wanted.  I  will  not,  said  he,  take  the  original  from  you  lest 
it  should  fare  as  the  letter  you  brought  from  the  Clergy  of 
Connecticut  has  fared.  I  left  it  with  Lord  North  when  he 
was  in  office,  and  have  never  been  able  to  recover  it;  but  if 
you  will  favor  me  with  copies  of  both  letters  I  shall  be 
obliged  to  you.     I  promised  compliance  and  took  my  leave. 

Dr.  Chandler  has  been  with  him  to-day  on  the  subject  of 
the  Nova  Scotia  Episcopate,  which,  I  believe,  will  be  effected. 
His  Grace  introduced  the  subject  of  Connecticut;  declared  his 


ILLUSIONS.  215 

readiness  to  do  everything  in  his  power,  compHmented  the 
Clergy  of  Connecticut,  and  your  humble  servant,  talked  of  an 
act  of  Parliament,  and  mentioned  that  some  young  gentle- 
men from  the  Southern  States,  who  were  here  soliciting 
Orders,  had  applied  to  the  Danish  Bishops  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  Danish  Ambassador  at  the  Hague,  upon  a  suppo- 
sition that  he  was  averse  to  conferring  orders  on  them;  but 
that  the  supposition  was  groundless,  he  being  willing  and 
ready  to  do  it  when  it  could  consistently  be  done."  ^ 

On  May  24,  1784,  the  account  of  the  applicant  is  continued 
in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Jarvis.     Referring  to  previous  letters,  he 

says: 

"  Since  those  letters  I  have  had  two  interviews  with  his 
Grace  of  Canterbury,  the  last  this  morning.  He  declares  him- 
self ready  to  do  everything  in  his  power  to  promote  the  business 
I  am  engaged  in ;  but  still  thinks  that  an  act  of  Parliament  will 
be  necessary  to  enable  him  to  proceed;  and  also  that  the  act 
of  the  Legislature  of  your  State,  which  you  mentioned  would 
be  sent  me  by  Mr.  Leaming,  is  absolutely  necessary  on  which 
to  found  an  application  to  Parliament.  I  pleased  myself 
with  the  prospect  of  receiving  the  copy  of  that  act  by  the  last 
packet,  the  letters  of  which  arrived  here  on  the  15".  inst. ;  but 
great  was  my  mortification,  that  no  letter  came  to  me  from 
my  good  and  ever  dear  friends.  What  I  shall  do  I  know 
not,  as  the  business  is  at  a  dead  stand  without  it;  and  the 
Parliament  is  now  sitting.  If  the  next  arrival  does  not  bring 
it,  I  shall  be  at  my  wit's  end.  Send  it,  therefore,  by  all 
means,  even  after  the  receipt  of  this  letter :  or  if  you  have  sent 
it,  send  a  duplicate. 

His  Grace  says  he  sees  no  reason  to  despair;  but  yet  that 

9.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  120,  121. 


2l6  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

matters  arc  in  such  a  state  of  uncertainty  that  he  knows  not 
how  to  promise  anything.  He  complains  of  the  people  in 
power;  that  there  is  no  getting  them  to  attend  to  anything  in 
which  their  own  party  interest  is  not  concerned.  This  is  cer- 
tainly the  worst  country  in  the  world  to  do  business  in.  I 
wonder  how  they  get  along  at  any  rate.  But  if  I  harl  the  act 
of  your  State  which  you  refer  to  in  your  letter,  I  should  be 
able  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  crisis,  and  it  would  be  deter- 
mined, one  way  or  the  other.  And  as  it  is  attended  with 
uncertainty  whether  I  shall  succeed  here,  I  have  in  two  or 
three  letters  to  Air.  Learning,  requested  to  know,  whether  in 
case  of  failure  here,  it  would  be  agreeable  to  the  Clergy  in 
Connecticut  that  I  should  apply  to  the  nonjuring  Bishops  in 
Scotland,  who  have  been  sounded  and  declare  their  readiness 
to  carry  the  business  into  execution.  I  hope  to  receive  in- 
structions on  this  head  by  the  next  arrival,  and  in  the  mean 
time  must  watch  occasions  as  they  rise. 

Believe  me,  there  is  nothing  that  is  not  base  that  I  would 
not  do,  nor  any  risk  that  I  would  not  run,  nor  any  incon- 
venience to  myself  that  I  would  not  encounter,  to  carry  this 
business  into  effect.  And  I  assure  you,  if  I  do  not  succeed  it 
shall  not  be  my  fault."  ^"^ 

Dr.  Seabury's  letter  of  June  26,  1784,  to  Mr.  Jarvis,  con- 
tinues the  relation : 

"  I  received  on  the  17"  inst.  Mr.  Learning's  letter,  inclosing 
the  act  of  the  legislature  of  Connecticut,  respecting  liberty 
of  conscience  in  that  State.  Upon  the  whole  I  think  it  a  lib- 
eral one;  and,  if  it  be  fairly  interpreted  and  abided  by,  fully 
adequate  to  all  good  purposes.  I  have  had  a  long  conversa- 
tion with  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  another  with 
the  Archbishop  of  York,  on  the  act.     They  seem  to  think  the 

10.  Beardsley's  life  of  Ep.   Scabury,  pp.   123,   124. 


ILLUSIONS.  217 

principal  objections  are  removed  so  far  as  you  or  I  are  con- 
cerned. They  spoke  handsomely  of  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut, 
and  declared  themselves  satisfied  with  your  humble  servant, 
whom  the  Clergy  were  pleased  to  recommend  to  them.  But 
I  apprehend  there  are  some  difficulties  that  may  not  easily  be 
got  over.  These  arise  from  the  restrictions  the  Bishops  are 
under  about  consecrating  without  the  King's  leave,  and  the 
doubt  seems  to  be  about  the  King's  leave  to  consecrate  a 
Bishop  who  is  not  to  reside  in  his  dominions;  and  about  the 
validity  of  his  dispensing  with  the  oath  in  case  he  has  power 
to  grant  leave  of  consecration.  I  have  declared  my  opinion, 
which  is,  that  as  there  is  no  law  existing  relative  to  a  Bishop 
who  is  to  reside  in  a  foreign  State,  the  Archbishops  are  left 
to  the  general  laws  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  have  no  need 
either  of  the  King's  leave  or  dispensation.  But  the  opinion 
of  so  little  a  man  cannot  have  much  weight.  The  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  supposes  that  an  Act  of  Parliament  will 
be  necessary;  yet  he  wishes  to  get  through  the  business,  if 
possible,  without  it,  and  acknowledged  that  the  opinion  of 
the  majority  of  the  Bishops  differed  from  his.  The  questions 
are  referred  to  the  Attorney  and  Solicitor-general,  and  their 
opinion,  should  they  agree,  will,  I  presume,  determine  the 
point.  This  opinion,  I  hope,  will  be  obtained  in  a  short  time, 
as  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  has  promised  to  consult 
them.     .     .     . 

I  have  had  opportunities  of  consulting  some  very  respect- 
able clergymen  in  this  matter,  and  their  invariable  opinion  is, 
that  should  I  be  disappointed  here,  where  the  business  had 
been  so  fairly,  candidly,  and  honorably  pursued,  it  would 
become  my  duty  to  obtain  Episcopal  consecration  wherever  it 
can  be  had,  and  that  no  exception  could  be  taken  here  at  my 
doing  so.  The  Scotch  Succession  was  named.  It  was  said  to 
be  equal  to  any  succession  in  the  world,  etc.  There  I  know 
consecration  may  be  had.     But  with  regard  to  this  matter  I 


2l8  MEMOIR    OF    BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

hope  to  hear  from  you  in  answer  to  a  letter  I  wrote  to  Mr. 
Learning,  I  think  in  April.  Should  I  receive  any  instruc- 
tions from  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  I  shall  attend  to  them; 
if  not,  I  shall  act  according  to  the  best  advice  I  can  get,  and 
my  own  judgment. 

Believe  me,  there  is  nothing  I  have  so  much  at  heart  as  the 
accomplishment  of  the  business  you  have  intrusted  to  my 
management ;  and  I  am  ready  to  make  every  sacrifice  of 
worldly  consideration  that  may  gtand  in  the  way  of  its  com- 
pletion." " 

The  last  of  this  series  is  addressed  to  the  Clergy  of  Con- 
necticut, and  contains  the  report  of  the  final  action  taken  in 
pursuit  of  their  instructions  to  resort  primarily  to  the  Eng- 
lish Bishops  for  the  consecration.  It  goes  again  over  the 
ground,  so  often  traversed,  of  the  necessity  of  a  permissive 
act  of  Parliament;  but  it  shows  a  nearer  approach  to  the  cri- 
sis, and  that  the  point  was  being  reached  at  which  the  question 
of  consecration  or  no  consecration  in  England  must  be  de- 
cided. If  Parliament  refused,  or  omitted  to  give,  the  needed 
authority  for  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop  to  be  settled  in 
foreign  parts,  which  would  involve  the  omission  of  the  State 
oaths,  and  the  waiver  of  questions  in  regard  to  the  position 
of  a  Bishop  so  to  be  settled,  it  would  be  considered  as  tanta- 
mount to  the  denial  of  the  application  in  the  present  case,  and 
the  applicant  would  prefer  his  petition  elsewhere.  This  let- 
ter is  here  given  entire. 

"  London,  July  26,  1784 
Gentlemen, —  I  take  the  opportunity  by  Mr.  Townsend  to 

write  to  you,  although  I  have  little  more  to  say  than  I  have 

already  said  in  my  late  letters. 

On  the  21^*=  inst.  I  had  an  interview  with  the  Archbishop 

of  Canterbury.     I  was  with  him  an  hour.     He  entered  fully 

II.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  130,  131. 


ILLUSIONS.  219 

and  warmly  into  my  business;  declared  himself  fully  sensible 
of  the  expediency,  justice,  and  necessity  of  the  measure;  and 
also  of  the  necessity  of  its  being  carried  immediately  into  exe- 
cution. An  act  of  Parliament,  however,  will  be  requisite  to 
enable  the  Bishops  to  proceed  without  incurring  a  Praemunire. 
A  bill  for  this  purpose  I  am  encouraged  to  expect  will  be 
brought  In  as  soon  as  the  proper  steps  are  taken  to  insure  it 
an  easy  passage  through  the  two  Houses.  The  previous  meas- 
ures are  now  concerting,  and  I  am  flattered  with  every  pros- 
pect of  success.  But  everything  here  is  attended  with 
uncertainty  till  it  is  actually  done.  Men  or  measures,  or  both, 
may  be  changed  to-morrow,  and  then  all  will  be  to  go  through 
again.  However,  I  shall  patiently  wait  the  issue  of  the  pres- 
ent session  of  Parliament,  which,  it  is  the  common  opinion, 
will  continue  a  month  longer.  If  nothing  be  done,  I  shall 
give  up  the  matter  here  as  unattainable,  and  apply  to  the 
North,  unless  I  should  receive  contrary  directions  from  the 
Clergy  of  Connecticut. 

The  various  difficulties  I  have  had  to  struggle  with,  and 
the  various  steps  I  have  taken  to  get  through  them  are  too 
long  to  communicate  by  letter;  but  I  hope  to  spend  the  next 
winter  in  Connecticut,  and  then  you  shall  know  all,  at  least  all 
that  I  shall  remember. 

My  best  regards  attend  the  Clergy,  and  all  my  friends  and 
the  friends  of  the  Church.  I  hope  yet  to  spend  some  happy 
years  with  them.  Accept,  my  good  brethren,  the  best  wishes 
of  your  affectionate  humble  servant, 

Samuel  Seabury." 

The  cheerful  and  courageous  tone  of  this  letter  appears 
not  to  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  recognition  of  the  very 
possible  prospect  of  a  final  disappointment  of  the  writer  in 
.the  efforts  which,  hoping  against  hope,  he  had  now  made  for 
more  than  a  year.     In  their  simple  faith  in  the  justice  of  their 


220  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

appeal  to  the  English  Bishops  the  Connecticut  Clergy  had 
commissioned  him  to  seek  consecration  from  them.  In  their 
relation  to  the  Civil  Authority  of  their  Country,  these  Bishops 
(lid  not  think  it  safe  to  grant  the  request  made  of  them :  and 
refused  to  do  so  unless  an  act  of  Parliament  should  authorize 
such  action  as  was  needed.  The  result  of  all  the  waiting, 
the  anxiety  and  suspense,  the  laborious  efforts  to  prepare  for 
and  procure  the  desired  sanction  from  Parliament,  was  that  an 
act  was  passed  authorizing  the  Bishop  of  London  and  his  sub- 
stitutes to  dispense  with  the  oaths  which  precluded  ordination 
of  foreign  candidates  for  the  Diaconate  and  the  Priest- 
hood; but  without  the  admission  of  candidates  for  the  Epis- 
copate to  the  same  privilege:  so  that  the  Bishop  Elect  in  the 
present  case  was  still  left  under  all  the  disabilities  which  the 
English  law  imposed  upon  him.  His  duty  therefore  was 
accomplished  so  far  as  the  English  Episcopate  was  concerned ; 
and  it  became  necessary  for  him  to  look  elsewhere  for  that 
which  he  had  been  commissioned  to  procure.  The  paths  open 
to  him,  and  the  course  actually  pursued  by  him,  are  now  to  be 
considered. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  FREE,  VALID  AND  PURELY  ECCLESIASTICAL 
EPISCOPACY. 

1784. 

THE  title  of  this  chapter  constitutes  a  phrase  which 
is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  writings  of  those 
who  were  interested  in  the  original  settlement  of 
Bishops  in  this  Country.  I  cannot  ascertain  by  whom  it  was 
first  used,  but  it  was  very  common  in  the  days  with  which  we 
are  now  concerned,  and  had  been  so  for  many  years.  It  well 
expressed  the  substance  of  the  desire  of  those  who  sought  to 
have  the  Episcopate  planted  in  this  Country;  and  was  de- 
signed to  indicate  the  absence  of  intention  to  introduce  with 
the  Episcopate  any  of  those  worldly  associations  which  have 
been  the  bane  of  that  Divine  Institution  since  the  Church 
ceased  to  be  persecuted,  and  the  Enemy  of  Mankind  became 
content  to  work  its  injury  by  the  slower,  but  more  effectual, 
process  of  connecting  it  with  the  State,  or  otherwise  corrupt- 
ing it  with  the  influences  of  temporal  power  and  wealth  and 
social  prestige. 

The  Episcopate  which  the  Connecticut  Clergy  sought  to 
procure  was  to  be  free,  as  being  entirely  distinct  from  the 
State,  and  subject  only  to  the  obHgations  of  its  own  Divinely 
given  charter  of  spiritual  authority;  it  was  to  be  valid,  as 
having  been  derived  by  direct  transmission  from  Christ 
through  the  Apostles  and  the  Bishops  successively  tracing 
back  to  them;  and  it  was  to  be  purely  ecclesiastical,  as  being 

221 


222  MEMOIR   OF   IllSIIOr    SEABURY. 

wholly  without  any  of  those  powers  which  had  been  legally 
and  technically  called  spiritual,  but  which  were  essentially 
civil  in  their  character.  In  the  aj^plication  to  the  English 
Establishmentarian  Bishops,  what  was  sought  from  them  was 
merely  the  Episcopal  character;  and  this,  if  obtamed,  was  de- 
signed to  be  used  simply  for  its  own  spiritual  ends.  But  the 
English  Episcopate  though  valid,  was  neither  free  nor  purely 
Ecclesiastical ;  and  therefore  was  incapable  of  communicating 
its  own  validity,  without  the  permission  of  those  to  whom  it 
had  forfeited  its  freedom. 

That  permission  being  refused,  and  the  Church  of  England 
Bishops  deprived  of  the  happiness  of  being  the  first  to  trans- 
mit to  this  Country  the  Apostolic  Succession,  it  was  necessary 
for  the  man  chosen  by  the  Connecticut  Clergy  to  be  the  Bishop 
of  the  Church  in  that  State,  to  seek  this  Episcopacy  in  another 
quarter. 

The  choice  before  him  appears  to  have  been  practically  lim- 
ited to  two  Hnes  of  the  Episcopate  then  existing  in  Great 
Britain,  and  distinct  from  the  Establishmentarian  line.  These 
two  lines  were  those  of  the  Scottish  Church,  and  of  the  non- 
juring  Bishops  of  the  Sancroft  succession  residing  in  Eng- 
land. There  were  other  Bishops  of  course  to  whom  access 
cotild  have  been  had;  but  these  were  such  as  would  not  have 
communicated  the  succession  to  the  applicant  without  requir- 
ing him  to  abandon  allegiance  to  the  Anglican  Communion  — 
as  in  the  case  of  Bishops  of  the  Greek  or  Roman  obedience; 
or  they  were  such  as  he  could  not  have  sought  the  Episcopate 
from,  without  recognizing  the  validity  of  that  which  they 
possessed,  probably  not  capable  of  proof  in  his  view, —  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Danish  succession.  So  that  practically  he  was 
to  choose  between  the  succession  of  the  Scottish  Church,  and 
the  English  non-juring  succession.  He  received  an  offer  of 
consecration  at  the  hands  of  Bishops  Cartwright  and  Price 
of  the  last  named  succession :  but  this  offer  was  declined  on 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  223 

the  ground  that  apphcation  had  already  been  made  by  him  to 
the  Scottish  Church,  and  that  the  apphcation  had  been  granted. 
Dr.  Seabury's  letter  to  Bishop  Cartwright,  of  October,  1784, 
printed  by  Dr.  Beardsley  (p.  135)  contains  the  following 
passage,  which  may  suffice  to  show  his  action  in  regard  to 
that  offer: 

''  Till  within  a  few  days  I  have  had  no  decided  answer  from 
the  North,  and  therefore  did  not  sooner  write  to  you  because 
I  could  make  no  certain  reply  to  your  letter.  But  as  the  issue 
of  the  negotiation  I  was  engaged  in  is  such  that  I  cannot  in 
honour  retreat,  I  can  only  at  present  return  you  my  hearty 
and  unfeigned  thanks  for  the  candid  communication  and  liberal 
sentiments  which  your  letter  contained;  and  assure  you  that  I 
shall  ever  retain  the  highest  esteem  and  veneration,  both  for 
yourself  and  Bishop  Price,  on  account  of  the  ready  disposition 
which  you  both  show  to  impart  the  great  blessing  of  a  primi- 
tive Episcopacy  to  the  destitute  Church  in  America."  ^ 

It  is  very  difficult  to  reconcile  the  expressions  in  Dr.  Sea- 
bury's  letters  to  Connecticut,  in  reference  to  his  application  to 
the  Scottish  Bishops,  with  a  consciousness  on  his  part  of  an 
obligation  to  follow  instructions  already  received  to  resort  to 
Scotland  in  case  of  his  failure  in  England.  Mr.  Fogg's  let- 
ter, above  quoted,  plainly  asserts  that  the  Connecticut  Clergy 
had  instructed  Dr.  Seabury  if  he  could  not  obtain  consecra- 
tion in  England  to  seek  it  in  Scotland:  yet  Dr.  Seabury  re- 
peatedly submits  the  question  of  such  procedure  to  the  Con- 
necticut Clergy,  as  if  he  had  received  no  instructions.  Either 
the  instructions  had  not  in  fact  been  communicated  to  him, 
although  the  Convention  ordered  that  they  should  be;  or  he 
had  not  remembered  them;  or  he  thought  that  the  members 

I.  The  word  "to"  appears  before  the  words  "assure  you"  in  the 
latter  part  of  this  sentence,  both  in  Dr.  Beardsley's  reprint,  and  in 
Bishop  Seabury 's  letter  book:  but  it  is  so  manifestly  an  inadvertence 
that  I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  omitting  it  from  the  above  text. 


224  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

of  the  Convention  ought  to  have  another  and  later  opportunity 
of  expressing  their  will  if  it  had  remained  unchanged. 

Dean  Burgon,  whose  judgment  on  all  points  is  worthy  of 
the  most  respectful  consideration,  affirms  very  positively  that 
the  suggestion  of  the  resort  to  the  Scottish  Bishops  was  first 
made  to  Dr.  Seabury  by  the  venerable  Dr.  Routh,  President 
of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  then  a  young  man  of  twenty- 
nine,  but  then,  as  always,  a  prodigy  of  learning;  and  that  Dr. 
Routh  at  the  same  time  disabused  the  mind  of  Dr.  Seabury 
as  to  the  validity  of  the  Danish  succession.  It  is  possible 
that  Dr.  Seabury  at  that  time  was  not  as  accurately  informed 
in  regard  to  the  Danish  succession  as  Dr.  Routh  was ;  and 
that  the  stricture  of  Dr.  Routh  may  have  removed  from  Dr. 
Seabury's  mind  any  question  which  might  have  arisen  there 
as  to  a  resort  to  that  succession,  which  it  was  understood  at 
the  time  might  have  been  imparted.  It  is  possible  also  that 
Dr.  Routh's  reference  to  the  Scottish  succession  might  have 
been  received  by  Dr.  Seabury  as  a  renewed  assurance  of  what 
he  had  already  understood,  and  of  what  he  knew  the  Con- 
necticut Clergy  were  also  aware  of.  But,  considering  his 
former  residence  in  Scotland,  and  his  former  associations  with 
the  Church  there,  it  seems  hardly  probable  that  Dr.  Seabury 
then  for  the  first  time  learned  of  the  existence  and  validity  of 
its  Episcopal  succession.  However,  it  certainly  does  not  seem 
that  he  thought  himself  bound  by  the  Connecticut  instructions 
to  resort  to  Scotland;  and  it  certainly  is  proved  that  Dr. 
Routh  suggested  that  resort;  and  the  reader,  if  he  is  curious 
enough  to  consult  Dean  Burgon's  account  of  the  matter  will 
at  least  find  it  most  interesting  and  instructive,  and  may  de- 
termine the  questions  raised  according  to  his  own  judg- 
ment.2 

It  does  not  appear  that  Dr.  Seabury  received  any  answer 

2.  Burgon's  Lives  of  Twelve  Good  Men,  vol.  I,  pp.  29-35,  and  Ap- 
pendix C.  in  the  same  volume. 


THE    PURELY    ECCLESIASTICAL    EPISCOPACY.  22$ 

from  Connecticut  to  his  requests  for  instructions;  and  it  is  to 
be  presumed  that,  having  heard  nothing  to  the  contrary,  he 
assumed  that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  the  Connecticut  Clergy, 
as  it  accorded  with  his  own  judgment,  that  he  should  prefer 
his  request  to  Scotland.  This  he  did,  after  informing  the 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  of  his  intention  to  pur- 
sue that  course. 

It  appears  that  the  idea  of  the  derivation  of  an  American 
Episcopate  from  the  Scottish  Bishops,  had  been  entertained 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Berkeley,  and  by  him  suggested  to  Bishop 
Skinner  of  Scotland,  some  months  before  the  same  idea  was 
broached  by  the  Connecticut  Convention.  Possibly  it  may 
have  occurred  to  others.  Dr.  Berkeley,  however,  a  son  of  the 
illustrious  Bishop  of  that  name,  seems  to  have  been  the  one 
who  first  brought  the  matter  home  to  the  consciousness  of 
the  Scottish  Bishops.  To  Bishop  Skinner  he  wrote  in  Oc- 
tober, 1782,  hoping  "  that  a  most  important  good  might  ere- 
long be  derived  to  the  suffering  and  nearly  neglected  sons 
of  Protestant  Episcopacy  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic 
from  the  suffering  Church  of  Scotland  ...  I  would 
humbly  submit  it  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  in  Scotland 
(as  we  style  her  in  Oxford),  whether  this  be  not  a  time 
peculiarly  favorable  to  tlie  introduction  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopate  on  the  footing  of  universal  toleration,  and  before 
any  Anti-Episcopal  establishment  shall  have  taken  place.  God 
direct  the  hearts  of  your  prelates  in  this  matter."  Bishop 
Skinner's  judgment  in  regard  to  the  suggestion  was  that  the 
Scottish  Bishops  could  not  move  in  the  matter  until  the  Brit- 
ish Government  had  committed  itself  irrevocably  on  the  ques- 
tion of  independence.  After  that  had  taken  place,  Dr.  Berke- 
ley again  addressed  him  on  the  subject,  speaking  in  one  of 
his  letters  as  follows : 

"  I  have  this  day  heard,  I  need  not  add  with  the  sincerest 
pleasure,  that  a  respectable  presbyter,  well  recommended,  from 


226  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

America,  has  arrived  in  London,  seeking  what,  it  seems,  in 
the  present  state  of  affairs,  he  cannot  expect  to  receive  in 
our  Church. 

Surely,  dear  sir,  the  Scotch  prelates,  who  are  not  shackled 
by  any  Erastian  connection,  will  not  send  this  suppliant  empty 
away." 

And  about  the  same  time,  November  1783,  the  question  was 
proposed  to  the  Scottish  Primus  by  Mr.  Elphinstone,  the  son 
of  a  Scotch  clergyman  — ''  Can  consecration  be  obtained  in 
Scotland  for  an  already  dignified  and  well-vouched  clergy- 
man now  at  London,  for  the  purpose  of  perpetuating  the 
Episcopal  reformed  Church  in  America,  particularly  in  Con- 
necticut ?  "  ^ 

It  would  seem  that  the  reply  to  these  suggestions  was  af- 
firmative, and  that  Dr.  Seabury  was  made  aware  of  the  wil- 
lingness of  the  Scottish  Bishops  to  consecrate  him,  since,  in 
his  letter  above  cited  of  June  26,  1784,  referring  to  Scotland, 
he  wrote,  "  there  I  know  consecration  can  be  obtained."  His 
own  first  move  in  the  matter  seems  to  have  been  by  a  letter 
to  his  friend  Dr.  Cooper  at  Edinburgh,  which  appears  to  have 
been  intended  to  be  submitted  to  the  Scottish  Bishops,  and 
which  was  so  submitted  by  its  recipient.  A  copy  of  this  let- 
ter in  his  own  handwriting  is  contained  in  his  manuscript  let- 
ter book,  being  the  first  of  the  letters  copied  into  that  book, 
and  is  as  follows: 

"  Copy  of  a  letter  from  Dr.  Seabury  to  Dr.  Cooper,  Dated 
London  31^*,  August  1784 
My  dear  Sir 

I  hope  this  letter  will  find  you  safe  at  Edin'^  in  good  health 
and  spirits.  Here  everything  in  which  I  have  any  concern 
continues  in  the  same  state  as  when  I  saw  you  at  your  Castle. 
I  have  been  for  some  time  past,  and  yet  am,  in  daily  expecta- 

3.  Cf.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  126-130. 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  227 

tlon  of  hearing  from  Connecticut;  but  there  have  been  no 
late  arrivals,  nor  shall  I  wait  for  any,  provided  I  have  any 
favorable  account  from  you,  but  shall  hold  myself  in  readiness 
to  set  off  for  the  North  at  24  hours  notice.  With  regard  to 
myself,  it  is  not  my  fault  that  I  have  not  done  it  before,  but  I 
thought  it  my  duty  to  pursue  the  plan  marked  out  for  me  by 
the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  as  long  as  there  was  a  probable 
chance  of  succeeding.  That  probability*  is  now  at  an  end, 
and  I  think  myself  at  liberty  to  pursue  such  other  schemes  as 
shall  ensure  to  them  a  valid  Episcopacy;  and  such  I  take  the 
Scotch  Episcopacy  to  be  in  every  sense  of  the  word ;  and  such 
I  know  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut  consider  it,  and  always 
have  done  so,  but  the  connection  that  has  always  subsisted 
between  them  and  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  generous 
support  they  have  hitherto  received  from  that  Church,  natu- 
rally led  them,  though  now  no  longer  a  part  of  the  British 
Dominions,  to  apply  to  that  Church  in  the  first  instance,  for 
relief  in  their  spiritual  necessity.  Unhappily  the  connection 
of  this  Church  with  the  State  is  so  intimate  that  the  Bishops 
can  do  little  without  the  consent  of  the  Ministry,  and  the 
Ministry  have  refused  to  permit  a  Bishop  to  be  consecrated 
for  Connecticut,  or  for  any  of  the  13  States,  without  the 
formal  request,  or  at  least  consent  of  Congress,  which  there 
is  no  chance  of  obtaining,  and  which  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut 
would  not  apply  for,  were  the  chance  ever  so  good.  They  are 
content  with  having  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut  put 
upon  the  same  footing  with  any  other  religious  denomination. 
A  copy  of  a  law  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  which  enables 
the  Episcopal  Congregations  to  transact  their  ecclesiastical 
affairs  upon  their  own  principles,  to  tax  their  members  for 
the  maintenance  of  their  Clergy,  for  the  support  of  their 
worship,  for  the  building  and  repairing  of  Churches,  and  which 

4.  This  word  is  mistakenly  printed  ''probably,"  in  Beardsley's  life 
of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  136. 


228  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

exempts  them  from  all  penalties  and  from  all  other  taxes,  on  a 
religious  account,  I  have  in  my  possession.  The  Legislature 
of  Connecticut  know  that  a  Bishop  is  applied  for,  they  know 
the  person  in  whose  favour  the  application  is  made,  and  they 
give  no  opposition  to  either.  Indeed  were  they  disposed  to 
object,  they  have  more  prudence  than  to  attempt  to  object  to  it. 
They  know  that  there  are  in  that  State  more  than  70  Episcopal 
Congregations :  many  of  them  large :  some  of  them  making  a 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  large  towns;  and  with  those 
that  are  scattered  through  the  State,  composing  a  body  of 
near  or  quite  40,000:  a  body  too  large  to  be  needlessly  af- 
fronted in  an  elective  government. 

On  this  ground  it  is  that  I  apply  to  the  good  Bishops  in 
Scotland,  and  I  hope  I  shall  not  apply  in  vain.  If  they  con- 
sent to  impart  the  Episcopal  succession  to  the  Church  of 
Connecticut,  they  will,  I  think,  do  a  good  work  and  the  bless- 
ing of  thousands  will  attend  them.  And  perhaps  for  this 
cause,  among  others,  God's  Providence  has  supported  them, 
and  continued  their  succession  under  various  and  great  diffi- 
culties —  that  a  free  valid  and  purely  ecclesiastical  Episcopacy 
may  from  them  pass  into  the  western  world. 

As  to  anything  which  I  receive  here,  it  has  no  influence  on 
me,  and  never  has  had  any.  I,  indeed  think  it  my  duty  to 
conduct  the  matter  in  such  a  manner  as  shall  risk  the  salaries 
which  the  Missionaries  in  Connecticut  receive  from  the  So- 
ciety here  as  little  as  possible;  and  I  persuade  myself  it  may 
be  done,  so  as  to  make  that  risk  next  to  nothing.  With  re- 
spect to  my  own  salary  —  if  the  Society  choose  to  withdraw 
it,  I  am  ready  to  part  with  it. 

It  is  a  matter  of  some  consequence  to  me  that  this  affair 
be  determined  as  soon  as  possible.  I  am  anxious  to  return 
to  America  this  autumn,  and  the  winter  is  fast  approaching, 
when  the  voyage  will  be  attended  with  double  inconvenience 
and  danger,  and  the  expense  of  continuing  here  another  win- 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  229 

ter  is  greater  than  will  suit  my  purse.  I  know  you  will  give 
me  the  earliest  intelligence  in  your  power,  and  I  shall  pa- 
tiently wait  till  I  hear  from  you.  My  most  respectful  regards 
attend  the  Right  Reverend  Gentlemen  under  whose  considera- 
tion this  business  will  come,  and  as  there  are  none  but  the 
most  open  and  candid  intentions  on  my  part,  so  I  doubt  not 
of  the  miost  candid  and  fair  construction  of  my  conduct  on 
their  part. 

Accept,  my  dear  Sir,  of  the  best  wishes  of  your  ever  affec- 
tionate &:c 

S.  S." 

The  next  entry  in  the  letter  book  is  as  follows : 

"  Copy  of  a  card  from  Dr.  Cooper  to  Bp.  Kilgour 

Dr.  Cooper  presents  his  most  respectful  compliments  to 
Bishop  Kilgour,  and  begs  leave  to  acquaint  him,  that  to  Dr. 
Cooper's  knowledge.  Dr.  Seabury  is  recommended  by  several 
worthy  Clergymen  in  Connecticut  as  a  person  worthy  of  pro- 
motion, and  to  whom  they  are  willing  to  submit  as  a  Bishop. 

Dated  Edin^  13th  September  1784 

Postscript  by  another  hand 

Dr.  Berkeley,  in  consequence  of  some  fears  suggested  by 
Bp.  Skinner,  wrote  the  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
that  application  had  been  made  by  Dr.  Seabury  to  the  Scot- 
tish Bishops  for  consecration,  and  begged,  that  if  his  grace 
thought  the  Bishops  here  run  any  hazard  in  complying  with 
Dr.  Seabury's  request,  he  would  be  so  good  as  [to]  give  Dr. 
Berkeley  notice  immediately,  but  if  his  Grace  was  satisfied 
that  there  was  no  danger,  there  was  no  occasion  to  give  any 
answer. 

No  answer  came." 

The  postscript  here  copied  is  said  to  have  been  a  memoran- 
dum in  the  handwriting  of  Bishop  Skinner  on  Dr.  Seabury's 
letter  of  application. 


230  MEMOIR   OF    BiSIIOr    SEABURY. 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  risk  in  the  contemplated 
action  of  the  Scottish  Bishops,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
whole  Scottish  Episcopal  Church  had  been  for  many  years, 
ever  since  the  first  session  of  King  William's  Parliament  in 
Scotland,  proscribed  by  law;  Episcopacy  being  then  abolished, 
and  in  the  next  session  the  Presbyterian  government  being 
established,  and  Presbyterian  Judicatories  being  erected  which 
had  authority  to  fine,  imprison  and  punish  the  Episcopal 
Clergy  even  if  they  held  any  private  congregations,  or  meet- 
ings with  people  of  their  own  Communion  and  opinions ;  and 
to  shut  up  the  doors  of  all  their  meetings,  not  allowing  them 
the  least  toleration.  Such  is,  in  part,  the  account  given  by 
Granville  Sharp  of  the  "  persecution  "  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy 
in  Scotland,  in  a  letter  written  by  him  to  the  Rev^.  Mr.  Man- 
ning, to  which  we  shall  probably  have  occasion  to  refer  here- 
after, and  which  is  here  cited  only  for  its  testimony  as  to  this 
particular.  The  situation  as  described  by  Dr.  Beardsley  was 
that  the  Clergy  were  forbidden  to  officiate  except  in  private 
dwellings,  and  then  only  for  four  persons  beside  the  house- 
hold; or  if  in  an  uninhabited  dwelling,  for  a  number  not  ex- 
ceeding four.  In  many  rural  places  their  houses  of  worship 
were  burnt  by  military  detachments;  and  in  towns  where 
burning  was  unsafe,  they  were  shut  up  or  demolished.  A 
clergyman  violating  these  laws  was  liable,  for  the  first  offense, 
to  six  months  imprisonment,  and  for  the  second,  to  transporta- 
tion for  life.^  And  although  in  the  lapse  of  time  the  harsh- 
ness with  which  these  laws  had  been  enforced  was  somewhat 
abated,  yet  the  laws  remained  unrepealed,  and  were  very  liable 
to  be  enforced  if  any  influence  near  the  Court  should  on  ac- 
count of  some  special  grievance  set  their  machinery  again  in 
motion.  Hence  the  caution  used  by  Bishop  Skinner  in  feel- 
ing the  pulse  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  through  Dr. 
Berkeley. 

5.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  p.   144. 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  23I 

It  was  on  account  of  these  persecutions  that  the  worship 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  was  conducted  with  that  secrecy 
which  we  have  had  occasion  to  notice  in  an  earUer  chapter  of 
this  work  while  Dr.  Seabury  resided  in  Edinburgh  as  a  stu- 
dent of  medicine  before  his  ordination;  and  for  the  same  rea- 
son that  Bishop  Skinner  had  been  obliged  to  make  provision 
for  the  worship  of  the  congregation  in  Aberdeen  to  which  he 
ministered,  by  setting  apart  for  the  purpose  the  two  upper 
floors  of  his  private  dwelling  house  in  an  obscure  part  of  the 
town  called  Longacre. 

The  next  entry  in  the  letter  book  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  — 

"  From  the  R*.  Rev^.  Bp.  Robert  Kilgour  of  Aberdeen  to 
the  Rev^.  Mr.  John  Allen  of  Edinburgh. 
Rev'^.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  acknowledge  by  first  opportunity  the  receipt  of  yours  of 
the  14th  ult.  enclosing  Dr.  Seabury's  letter  to  Dr.  Cooper 
which  I  doubt  not  you  have  received  in  course. 

Dr.  Seabury's  long  silence  after  it  had  been  signified  to  him 
that  the  Bishops  of  this  Church  would  comply  with  his  pro- 
posals, made  them  all  think  that  the  affair  was  dropped  and 
that  he  did  not  chuse  to  be  connected  with  them,  but  his  letter 
and  the  manner  in  which  he  accounts  for  his  conduct  give 
such  satisfaction  that  I  have  the  pleasure  to  inform  you,  that 
we  are  still  willing  to  comply  with  his  proposal ;  to  cloath  him 
with  the  Episcopal  character,  and  thereby  convey  to  the 
Western  World  the  blessing  of  a  free,  valid  and  purely  eccle- 
siastical Episcopacy:  not  doubting  that  he  will  so  agree  with 
us  in  Doctrine  and  Discipline  as  that  he  and  the  Church  under 
his  charge  in  Connecticut,  will  hold  communion  with  us  and 
the  Church  here  on  Catholic  and  Primitive  principles;  and  so 
that  the  members  of  both  may  with  freedom  communicate  to- 
gether in  all  the  Offices  of  Religion. 

We  are  concerned  that  he  should  have  been  so  long  in  de- 


232  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

termining  himself  to  make  this  appHcation  and  wish  that  in  an 
affair  of  so  much  importance  he  had  corresponded  with  one  of 
our  number.  However  as  he  appears  open  and  candid  on  his 
part,  he  may  beheve  the  Bishops  will  be  no  less  so  on  their 
part ;  and  will  be  glad  how  soon  he  can  set  out  for  the  North. 

As  I  cannot  undertake  a  journey  to  Edinburgh,  and  it  would 
also  be  too  hard  on  Bp.  Petrie  in  his  very  infirm  state,  the 
only  proper  place  that  remains  for  us  to  meet  in  is  Aberdeen. 

How  soon  Dr.  Seabury  fixes  on  the  time  for  his  setting  out 
or  at  least  how  soon  he  comes  into  Scotland,  I  hope  he  will  ad- 
vise me;  as  the  Bishops  will  settle  their  time  of  meeting  for 
his  Consecration  as  soon  thereafter  as  their  circumstances  and 
distance  will  permit.  With  a  return  of  the  Bps.  most  re- 
spectful regards  to  Dr.  Seabury,  please  advise  him  of  all  this. 

May  God  grant  us  a  happy  meeting,  and  direct  all  to  the 
honour  and  glory  of  his  name  and  to  the  good  of  his  Church. 
To  his  benediction  I  ever  heartily  commend  you  and  am 

Rev^  and  dear  Sir 
Your  affect  Brother 

and  humble  Serv*. 
Robert  Kilgour." 
Peterhead 
2"<i  Ocf  1784 

This  letter  to  Mr.  Allan  was  communicated  to  Dr.  Sea- 
bury, and  the  following  is  a  transcript  of  his  copy  of  the  letter 
written  by  him  in  response  to  it: 

**  From  the  Rev^  Dr.  Seabury  to  Rt.  Rev^  Bishop  Kilgour. 

London  October  14*^.  1784 
Right  Rev^  Sir 

Three  days  ago  I  was  made  happy  by  the  receipt  of  a  letter 
from  my  friend  in  Edinburgh,  inclosing  one  from  you  to  the 
Rev^  Mr.  John  Allan  signifying  the  consent  of  the  Bishops  in 


THE    PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  233 

Scotland  to  convey  through  me  the  blessing  of  a  free,  valid 
and  purely  Ecclesiastical  Episcopacy  to  the  Western  World. 
My  most  hearty  thanks  are  due  to  you,  and  to  the  other 
Bishops  for  the  kind  and  Christian  attention  which  they  show 
to  the  destitute  and  suffering  Church  in  North  America  in 
general,  and  that  of  Connecticut  in  particular;  and  for  that 
ready  and  willing  mind  which  they  have  manifested  in  this  im- 
portant affair.  May  God  accept  and  reward  their  piety;  and 
grant  that  the  whole  business  may  terminate  in  the  glory  of 
his  name  and  the  prosperity  of  his  Church. 

As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  or  my  influence  shall  extend, 
nothing  shall  be  wanting  to  establish  the  most  liberal  inter- 
course and  union  between  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland 
and  in  Connecticut,  so  that  the  members  of  both  may  freely 
communicate  together  in  all  the  offices  of  religion,  on  Catholic 
and  Primitive  principles. 

Whatever  appearances  there  may  have  been  of  inattention 
on  my  part  they  will  I  trust,  when  I  shall  have  the  happiness 
of  a  personal  conference,  be  fully,  and  to  a  mind  so  candid  and 
liberal  as  yours,  satisfactorily  explained. 

I  propose,  through  the  favour  of  God's  good  providence, 
to  be  at  Aberdeen  by  the  10*^  of  November,  and  shall  there 
wait  the  conveniency  of  the  Bishops  who  have  so  humanely 
taken  this  matter  under  their  management.  My  best  and 
most  respectful  regards  attend  them. 

Commending  myself  to  your  prayers,  and  good  offices,  I 
remain  Right  Rev*^  Sir,  with  the  greatest  respect  and  esteem 
your  most  ob*.  and  humble  serv*. 

s.  sr 

At  this  period  the  Bishops  of  the  Scottish  Church  were 
four  in  number:  viz;  The  Right  Reverend  Robert  Kilgour, 
Bishop  of  Aberdeen,  and  Primus ;  the  Right  Reverend  Arthur 
Petrie,    Bishop  of    Ross  and    Moray;  the  Right    Reverend 


234  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Charles  Rose,  Bishop  of  Dunblane;  and  the  Right  Reverend 
John  Skinner,  Coadjutor  Bishop  of  Aberdeen. 

By  agreement  of  these  Bishops,  and  arrangement  with  Dr. 
Seabury,  the  consecration  was  appointed  to  take  place  at  Aber- 
deen in  the  chapel  of  Bishop  Skinner,  on  Sunday  the  14*'^  day 
of  November,  1784;  and  at  that  time  and  place  the  consecra- 
tion of  Dr.  Seabury  to  the  Episcopate  was  accomplished  by  the 
act  of  the  Right  Reverend  Bishops  Kilgour,  Petrie  and 
Skinner  above  named.  Bishop  Rose  of  Dunblane,  the  fourth 
of  the  existing  Scottish  Bishops  is  recorded  in  the  Minutes  of 
the  Proceedings  as  ''  Having  previously  signified  his  assent, 
and  excused  his  absence  by  reason  of  his  state  of  health  and 
great  distance."  ^ 

Nothing  can  exceed  the  orderly  care  which  characterized  all 
of  the  proceedings  incident  to  the  solemnity  of  the  perform- 
ance of  this  consecration ;  and  the  most  methodical  precision 
appears  to  have  been  observed  in  placing  upon  record  the 
facts  of  the  consecration,  the  grounds  upon  which  the  action 
of  the  Scottish  Bishops  therein  was  based,  and  the  motives 
and  principles  by  which  they  were  led  to  the  performance 
of  it. 

The  Bishops  who  were  to  officiate  in  the  Consecration,  con- 
vened for  conference  with  Dr.  Seabury  on  the  day  before  the 
consecration,  and  received  from  him  the  evidences  of  his  elec- 
tion by  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  the  testimonials  as  to  his 
character  and  fitness  for  the  office  which  he  had  been  sent  to 
seek,  and  other  papers  bearing  upon  the  case;  and  all  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  Episcopal  Conference,  with  a  detailed 
statement  of  the  evidences  laid  before  it,  were  duly  recorded  in 
the  ''  Minute  Book  of  the  College  of  Bishops  in  Scotland," 
together  with  the  historical  declaration  of  the  fact  and  manner 
of  the  Consecration  itself.     In  addition  to  this  careful  record 

6.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  147. 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  235 

there  was  signed  and  sealed  by  the  consecrating  Bishops  the 
formal  letter  of  consecration,  certifying  the  promotion  of 
Samuel  Seabury  to  the  Episcopate ;  and  there  was  also,  on  the 
15th  of  November,  signed  and  sealed  in  duplicate  by  the  con- 
secrating Bishops  and  by  the  Bishop  just  consecrated,  an 
Instrument  setting  forth  the  agreement  of  these  Bishops  upon 
certain  articles,  designed  to  serve  as  a  ''  Concordat,  or  Bond 
of  Union,  between  the  Catholic  remainder  of  the  ancient 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  the  now  rising  Church  in  the  State 
of  Connecticut."  There  was  also  a  letter  signed  by  the  con- 
secrating Bishops,  and  addressed  ''  to  the  Episcopal  Clergy  in 
Connecticut,  in  North  America." 

All  of  these  documents  have  been  carefully  preserved  and 
are  still  extant.  They  are  all  printed  in  Dr.  Beardsley's  Life 
(pp.  146-156.) 

And  so,  at  last,  was  procured  for  the  Church  in  the 
Western  World,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Connec- 
ticut Clergy  and  their  chosen  Bishop,  and  by  means  of  the 
courageous  Christian  charity  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Scottish 
Church,  that  which  had  been  for  more  than  a  century  desired 
and  sought  after  with  unabated  zeal,  and  undiscouraged 
though  futile  persistence,  the  blessing  of  a  free,  valid  and 
purely  ecclesiastical  Episcopacy. 

It  has  been  observed  in  the  previous  chapter  that  no  per- 
sonal objection  was  ever  made  against  Dr.  Seabury  by  the 
English  Bishops  from  whom  he  sought  consecration,  and  the 
same  observation  may  be  made  with  reference  to  the  Scottish 
Bishops  from  whom  he  ultimately  received  it.*^  There  was, 
however,  an  attempt  made  in  one  quarter  to  influence  the 
Scottish  Bishops  against  consecrating  him;  and  also  an  at- 

7.  Bishop  Rose,  however,  did  qualify  his  general  approval  by  saying 
that  the  only  objection  he  had  to  the  American  Doctor  was  that  he 
"  had  got  his  orders  from  the  Schismatical  Church  of  England! " 
Dowden's  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office,  p.  60. 


236  MEMOIR    OF    mSIlOP    SEABURY. 

tempt  made  to  prejudice  the  English  Bishops  ac^ainst  him 
after  his  consecration  had  been  accompHshed ;  and,  along  with 
this  last,  an  effort  made  to  foment  opposition  against  him  in 
this  Country  after  he  had  brought  to  it  the  Episcopal  charac- 
ter: which  backbiting  endeavors  may  perhaps  properly  be 
noticed  in  concluding  this  chapter. 

The  attempt  to  influence  the  Scottish  Bishops  came  in  the 
form  of  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Smith,  a  Scotch- 
man by  birth,  formerly  provost  of  the  College  and  Academy 
of  Philadelphia  but  then  at  the  head  of  Washington  College 
in  Maryland.  "  He  had,"  says  Dr.  Beardsley,  *'  views  of  his 
own  to  promote,  and  hoped  and  made  efforts  to  be  raised  to 
the  Episcopate  in  IMaryland,  which  he  seems  to  have  feared 
that  the  consecration  of  Seabury  might  frustrate.  The  Scot- 
tish Bishops  had  too  many  evidences  of  the  Christian  char- 
acter of  the  Candidate,  and  were  too  well  persuaded  of  the 
unreasonableness  of  not  complying  with  his  request,  to  be 
hindered  by  such  a  communication."  ^  It  is  pleasant  to  re- 
member at  this  time  that  friendly  relations  afterward  sub- 
sisted, nevertheless,  between  Bishop  Seabury  and  Dr.  Smith, 
in  the  organization  of  the  Union  of  the  Dioceses  in  this 
Country ;  and  that  Dr.  Smith  was  especially  serviceable  in 
promoting  the  adoption  by  the  House  of  Deputies  of  the 
General  Convention  of  the  Prayer  of  Consecration,  which 
Bishop  Seabury  was  at  the  same  session  presenting  in  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

The  other  personal  attack  upon  Bishop  Seabury,  proceeded 
from  Mr.  Granville  Sharp,  a  grandson  of  Dr.  John  Sharp 
sometime  Archbishop  of  York.  Some  days  after  the  consecra- 
tion in  Scotland,  he  wrote  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
regretting  the  limitation  of  the  late  act,  authorizing  only 
the  ordination  of  priests  and  deacons  for  independent  States. 

8.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  143. 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  237 

"  I  should  not,"  said  he,  "  have  troubled  your  Grace  with  so 
long  a  letter  on  this  subject,  had  I  not  lately  been  informed 
that  an  American  Clergyman,  who  calls  himself  a  Loyalist^ 
is  actually  gone  down  to  Scotland,  with  a  view  of  obtaining 
consecration  from  some  of  the  remaining  nonjuring  Bishops 
in  that  kingdom,  who  still  affect  among  themselves  a  nominal 
jurisdiction  from  the  Pretender's  appointment;  and  he  pro- 
poses, afterwards,  to  go  to  America,  in  hopes  of  obtaining 
jurisdiction  over  several  Episcopal  Congregations  in  Con- 
necticut." ^ 

Perhaps  this  letter  may  have  added  to  the  annoyance  which 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  others  probably  expe- 
rienced at  the  independent  and  resolute  course  pursued  by 
Dr.  Seabury  after  he  had  finally  abandoned  the  hope  of  an 
English  consecration.  And  perhaps,  Mr.  Sharp  may  be  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  nettles  which  stung  the  English  Bishops, 
and  others,  into  the  consciousness  that  a  grave  mistake  had 
been  made  in  excluding  Bishops  from  the  privilege  given  to 
priests  and  deacons  in  the  late  act.  Mr.  Sharp  is  said  by 
Dr.  Beardsley  to  have  afterwards  used  his  good  offices  to  the 
end  that  Episcopacy  should  be  obtained  from  English  Bishops, 
as  some  three  years  after  was  actually  accomplished  in  the 
consecration  of  Bishops  White  and  Provost,  and,  later,  of 
Madison.  It  was  no  doubt  most  consonant  with  the  dignity 
of  the  English  Episcopate  to  refuse  the  consecration  of  an 
American  Bishop,  and  plead  the  legal  disability  for  that 
action;  but  it  did  not  conduce  to  the  dignity  of  the  English 
Bishops  that  such  consecration  should  be  received  without 
their  performing  it.  And  so,  "  lest  the  City  should  be  taken 
by  another  and  called  by  his  name,"  it  became  necessary  to 
speak  "  with  great  delicacy  of  Dr.  Seabury,"  and,  with  some 
painful    surprise,    of   the    recent   event;    and   that   measures 

9.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  164,  165. 


238  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

should  be  taken  to  extend  the  operation  of  the  law ;  and  that  a 
sufficient  number  of  Bishops  to  carry  on  the  American  suc- 
cession should  be  carefully  supplied  by  an  English  consecra- 
tion ;  so  that  the  Scottish  consecration  should  be  made  to 
appear  as  an  over  zealous,  and  ''  precipitate  "  action  and  quite 
unnecessary  —  all  of  which  before  long  came  to  pass ;  with  the 
result  that  a  prejudice  was  implanted  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  sympathized  with  the  full  fed  dignity  of  the  English  Es- 
tablishmentarians,  against  the  man  who  had  presumed  to  ac- 
complish his  end  without  their  gracious  permission,  which 
has  not  to  this  day  been  wholly  overcome. ^^ 

But  whatever  credit  one  may  be  disposed  to  give  Mr.  Sharp 
for  his  influence  in  the  promotion  of  English  consecrations,  I 
confess  that  I  find  it  difficult  to  credit  him  with  any  good 
motive  or  influence  in  endeavoring  to  prejudice  the  American 
mind  against  the  validity  of  the  Episcopate  conferred  by  the 
Scottish  Bishops,  and  against  the  fitness  for  it  of  the  man 
upon  whom  it  had  been  conferred. 

Three  months  after  the  Consecration  he  wrote  to  the  Rev. 
James  Manning,  a  Baptist  Minister  and  President  of  the  Col- 

10.  The  Rev.  Dr.  George  Home,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  writing  to 
Bishop  Seabury  in  reference  to  his  consecration  in  Scotland,  says, 
January  3,  1785,  "There  is  some  uneasiness  about  it,  I  find,  since  it 
is  done.  It  is  said,  you  have  been  precipitate.  I  should  be  inclined 
to  think  so,  too,  had  any  hopes  been  left  of  obtaining  consecration 
from  England.  But  if  none  were  left,  what  could  you  do,  but  what 
you  have  done?"     Ms.  Letter. 

Bishop  Madison  writes  to  Bishop  White  that  while  he  was  in  Lon- 
don the  Archbishop,  having  requested  a  particular  interview  with  him, 
"said  he  wished  to  express  his  hopes,  and  also  to  recommend  it  to 
our  Church,  that  in  such  consecrations  as  might  take  place  in  America, 
the  persons  who  had  received  their  powers  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, should  alone  be  concerned.  He  spoke  with  great  delicacy  of  Dr. 
Seabury ;  but  thought  it  most  advisable  that  the  line  of  Bishops  should 
be  handed  down  from  those  who  had  received  their  commission  from 
the  same  source."     Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  143,  note. 


THE   PURELY   ECCLESIASTICAL   EPISCOPACY.  239 

lege  of  Providence  in  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  setting  forth 
his  dissatisfaction  with  the  consecration  and  with  the  man 
consecrated,  a  dissatisfaction  resulting,  as  he  does  not  scruple 
to  confess,  from  his  own  ignorance  as  to  both  particulars.^^ 
From  this  letter,  which  I  find  among  Bishop  Seabury's  papers, 
I  quote  a  passage  which  may  suffice  to  show  the  supercilious 
and  meddlesome  spirit  of  the  writer,  and  his  confused  ideas 
on  the  subject  of  the  Scottish  Episcopate : 

"  I  know  nothing  of  Dr.  Seabury's  character,  or  qualifica- 
tions, nor  of  the  present  state  of  the  nonjuring  Bishops  in 
Scotland,  nor  how  their  pretentions  to  a  due  succession  of 
Episcopal  authority  are  supported ;  but  I  think  it  cannot  be 
too  carefully  investigated,  lest  Episcopacy  (the  just  and  prim- 
itive rights  of  which  are  highly  worthy  the  attention  and 
support  of  all  sincere  Christians)  should  be  brought  into  dis- 
repute by  any  undue  mode  of  obtaining  the  dignity ;  either 
by  "  the  laying  hands  suddenly "  on  persons  whose  moral 
characters  and  qualifications  are  not  sufficiently  proved  and 
known,  or  who  do  not  produce  unexceptionable  certificates 
of  being  duly  elected  to  the  pastoral  inspection  of  a  competent 
provincial  Church :  or,  on  the  other  hand,  by  any  defect  in  the 
supposed  authority  of  those  who  pretend  to  confer  the  dignity. 
The  original  Nonjuring  Bishops,  who  were  actually  ejected 
from  their  Sees  in  England  for  refusing  to  take  the  oaths  to 
King  William  and  Queen  Mary,  after  the  revolution,  had  cer- 
tainly a  right  to  ordain  or  consecrate  such  proper  persons  as 
were  legally  appointed  to  an  Episcopal  charge,  they  them- 
selves having  been  duly  consecrated  by  "  the  laying  on  of 
hands  "  in  a  succession  of  Authority  that  is  unquestionable ; 
but  it  seems  very  doubtful  how  a  succession  of  their  authority 

II.  "Has  Mr.  Sharp  no  correspondence  with  any  Clergyman  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,"  wrote  Mr.  Thomas  Fitch  Oliver, 
"that  he  writes  on  a  subject  of  that  nature  to  a  Baptist  minister?" 
Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  242. 


240  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

could  be  continued  for  a  number  of  years  after  their  death, 
amongst  persons  who  have  no  real  Congregation  or  Charge, 
but  only  a  nominal  or  mere  titular  appointment  over  an  invisible 
Church,  and  that  granted  by  the  pretender;  a  foreign  Prince, 
who  has  no  authority  whatsoever  in  these  Kingdoms.  This 
must  be  the  case,  I  fear,  with  the  present  Scotch  Bishops  if 
they  are  really  what  they  are  called,  only  the  successors  of  the 
Nonjuring  Bishops." 

For  Mr.  Sharp  to  consider  election  to  a  competent  Pro- 
vincial Church  as  a  requisite  for  jurisdiction  under  circum- 
stances which  were  as  primitive  in  their  character  as  those  of 
the  Church  before  Provinces  were  constituted;  and  to  regard 
the  Scottish  Bishops  as  Titulars  of  the  Pretender's  appoint- 
ment; and  to  question  the  vahdity  of  their  Orders  because  it 
was  doubtful  whether  they  were  successors  of  the  English 
Nonjuring  Bishops,  was  to  display  an  ignorance  of  the  whole 
matter  which  quite  justified  his  profession  that  he  knew  noth- 
ing of  the  subject  on  which  he  was  addressing  Mr.  Manning. 
No  doubt  Mr.  Manning  was  duly  edified;  and  no  doubt  too, 
Mr.  Sharp  may  be  credited  with  having  done  what  he  could 
slanderously  to  extend  wrong  impressions  in  regard  to  matters 
as  to  which  he  might  easily  have  better  informed  himself  if 
he  had  thought  it  worthy  of  his  dignity  to  take  the  trouble  to 
ascertain  facts  which  were  accessible  to  any  one  who  cared  to 
look  for  them. 

I  have  quoted  the  passage,  however,  not  only  to  show  the 
ignorance  of  Mr.  Sharp,  but  also  because  the  confusion  of 
mind  which  it  indicates  in  regard  to  the  true  position  of  the 
Scottish  Episcopate  has  unhappily  been  largely  shared  by  many 
who  have  not  enjoyed  Mr.  Sharp's  neglected  opportunities  for 
a  more  accurate  information.  In  the  next  chapter  an  effort 
will  be  made  to  contribute  something  to  the  better  under- 
standing of  matters  which  have  sometimes  been  misunder- 
stood, and  sometimes  misrepresented,  to  the  disadvantage,  or 
disparagement,  of  the  Scottish  succession. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  MEDIATION  OF  THE  SCOTTISH 
EPISCOPATE. 

WE  certainly  have  good  authority  for  the  saying  that 
"A  Mediator  is  not  a  Mediator  of  One:"^  and  if 
mediation  may  be  attributed  to  the  Scottish  Epis- 
copate in  respect  to  the  matter  of  the  succession,  it  will  be  ap- 
parent that  it  must  be  because  of  its  relation  to  the  Episcopate 
from  which  it  was  derived,  and  to  that  to  which  it  contri- 
buted. The  title,  at  any  rate  may  serve  to  suggest  the  purpose 
of  the  present  chapter ;  which  is  to  give,  at  least  in  outline,  an 
account  of  the  Episcopate  of  the  Scottish  Church  in  its  re- 
lation to  that  of  the  English  Church,  and  to  point  out  the  dis- 
tinctive influence  of  the  Scottish  Episcopate  upon  the  Ameri- 
can succession. 

Although  the  churches  in  England  and  Scotland  had  no  de- 
pendence upon  each  other,  yet  they  belonged  by  reason  of 
their  common  inheritance  to  the  one  Catholic  Communion, 
and  lived  at  the  time  which  we  have  been  considering  under 
the  same  civil  government.  Theoretically  they  were  in  com- 
munion with  each  other;  but  practically  there  was  a  serious 
division  between  them,  to  the  extent  at  least  that  each  was 
rather  afraid  of  compromising  itself  by  acknowledging  that 
the  other  was  what  it  should  be.  Before  the  Reformation 
each  of  these  Churches  was  in  possession  of  a  regular  Episco- 
pate.    In  the  troubles  which  grew  out  of  the  Reformation 

I.  Galatians,  III,  29. 

241 


242  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SKABURY. 

both  severely  suffered :  but  while  the  Church  of  England 
preserved  unbroken  the  continuity  of  its  Episcopal  succession, 
the  Church  in  Scotland  was  not  so  happy.  The  Reformation 
in  Scotland  —  if  the  shocking  experience  of  the  Scottish 
Church  may  be  properly  so  called  —  proceeded  after  a  very 
disorderly  fashion,  and  resulted  in  the  failure  of  the  Episcopal 
succession,  and  in  the  spoliation  and  misappropriation  of  the 
revenues  of  the  Church.  A  remnant  of  the  Bishops,  escaping 
the  fury  which  had  been  raised  against  them  fled  to  the  Con- 
tinent, but  made  no  attempt  to  continue  their  succession ;  and 
this  line  came  to  an  end  in  the  person  of  Archbishop  Beaton, 
of  Glasgow,  who  died  at  the  court  of  France  in  1603.^ 

In  the  same  year  James  VI  of  Scotland  became  James  I  of 
England ;  and  he,  having  in  view  the  welfare  of  his  Scottish 
subjects,  used  his  influence  to  procure  the  restoration  of  the 
Episcopate  to  the  Scottish  Church.  The  confusions  in  Scot- 
land had  led  to  the  establishment  of  what  were  called  titular 
Bishops,  i.  e.,  Superintendents  exercising  some  authority  with- 
out consecration.^  James  had  already  done  what  he  could 
for  the  Church  by  transferring  to  these  titulars  a  part  of  the 
revenues  which  belonged  to  the  Dioceses  for  which  they  were 
appointed,  but  which  had  been  hitherto  otherwise  appropri- 
ated, or  misappropriated.  After  coming  to  the  throne  of 
England  he  called  three  of  these  titulars  up  to  London  that 
they  might  receive  Episcopal  consecration  from  the  English 
Bishops:  and  thus,  in  1610,  Abbott,  Bishop  of  London;  An- 
drewes.  Bishop  of  Ely;  and  Montague,  Bishop  of  Bath  and 
Wells;  conferred  the  Episcopate  on  Spottiswood,  Archbishop 
of  Glasgow ;  Lamb,  Bishop  of  Brechin ;  and  Hamilton,  Bishop 

2.  Skinner's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  II,  pp.  226  and 
242. 

See  his  judicious  remarks  on  the  failure  of  these  Bishops  to  con- 
tinue their  succession,  pp.   226-228. 

3.  Skinner,  II,  236-7. 


THE    MEDIATION    OF   THE   SCOTTISH    EPISCOPATE.  243 

of  Galloway;^  and  these  consecrated  their  former  titular 
brethren. 

Owing,  however,  to  the  troubles  of  the  Rebellion,  this  line 
also  became  extinct,  or  practically  so,  being  represented  in 
only  one  superannuated  member,  Sydserf  who  died  about 
1662.^  The  process  of  161D  was  repeated  in  1661  under 
Charles  II,  and  by  four  of  the  Scotchmen  who  came  up  to 
London  to  receive  consecration  from  the  Bishops  of  the 
English  Church,  the  line  was  again  restored,  and  the  vacant 
sees  were  filled  once  more  with  lawful  Bishops.^  This  line 
survives  unbroken  to  the  present  day,  and  it  was  from  the 
representatives  of  it  that  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  received 
his  consecration  in  1784.  So  that  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
Bishop  of  Connecticut,  although  consecrated  in  Scotland  and 
by  Bishops  of  the  Scottish  Church,  traced  his  Episcopate 
through  the  same  English  succession  from  which  were 
derived  the  orders  of  those  who  afterwards  consecrated 
Bishops  for  Pennsylvania,  New  York  and  Virginia. 

Why  then  —  since  the  Church  in  Scotland  was  not  only  a 
fellow  member  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  but  also 
under  the  oversight  of  a  line  of  Bishops  which  had  been  re- 
ceived from  the  Church  of  England  itself  —  was  this  Church 
to  be  ignored  by  that  of  England,  and  its  consecrations  to  be 

4.  This  consecration  was  per  saltum,  October  21,  1610.  Percival's 
Apology  on  the  Apostolic  Succession,  p.  182;  Skinner,  II,  251-3. 

5.  Skinner's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  II,  p.  458. 

6.  At  Westminster  Abbey,  December  15,  1661,  Sheldon  of  London, 
Morley  of  Worcester,  Sterne  of  Carlisle,  and  Lloyd  of  Llandaff,  con- 
secrated James  Sharp  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrew's,  Andrew  Fairfoul 
Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  Robert  Leighton  Bishop  of  Dunblane,  and 
James  Hamilton  Bishop  of  Galloway.  Of  these  four  Fairfoul  and 
Hamilton  were  in  Priest's  Orders  before  they  came  to  London,  but 
Sharp  and  Leighton,  not  having  received  Episcopal  ordination  were, 
previous  to  their  consecration,  ordained  both  Deacons  and  Priests. 
Stephen's  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  vol.  II,  pp.  446-451. 


244  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

cither  disregarded,  or,  as  it  were,  received  on  sufferance? 
There  is  no  reason  why  it  should  have  been  so;  but  there  is 
a  reason  why  it  was  so,  as  I  will  now  endeavour  to  explain. 

There  are  three  periods  of  history  in  which  the  destruction 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  Scotland  as  well ;  and  the 
consequent  silencing  of  the  peculiar  witness  of  the  Anglican 
Communion  to  the  true  faith  and  order  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  have  been  well  nigh  accomplished. 

Two  of  these  periods,  that  of  the  Reformation  and  that  of 
the  Rebellion,  this  Anglican  Communion  —  for  the  cause  of 
England  and  Scotland  was  one  —  survived,  though  it  was 
saved  so  as  by  fire.  The  third  period  was  that  of  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1688 ;  and  through  that  too  it  lived,  though  at  the  cost 
of  some  ghastly  wounds. 

The  Revolution  of  1688  resulted  in  what  was  called  the  re- 
settlement of  the  Royal  Succession,  which  was,  being  inter- 
preted, the  placing  upon  the  throne,  by  act  of  Parliament  of  a 
new  line  which  would  have  had  no  right  to  the  throne  without 
such  parliamentary  action.  With  the  right  or  wrong  of  this 
change  we  have  at  present  no  concern.  Whether  James  II 
abdicated,  or  was  ejected,  or  both,  —  and  indeed  each  event 
occurred  —  in  point  of  fact  William  and  Mary  came  to  the 
throne  and  required  the  allegiance  of  all.  The  oath,  however, 
which  it  was  thought  necessary  to  exact  as  the  proper  evidence 
of  the  acknowledgment  of  that  allegiance  was  not  in  all 
cases  taken.  Sancroft,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  seven 
other  of  the  English  Bishops,  declined  to  take  it,  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  already  taken  such  an  oath  to  James  II, 
and  that  they  could  not   forswear  themselves."^     These  non- 

7,  The  seven  Bishops  above  mentioned  v^ere  Lloyd  of  Norwich, 
Turner  of  Ely,  Frampton  of  Gloucester,  Ken  of  Bath  and  Wells, 
White  of  Peterborough,  Thomas  of  Worcester,  and  Lake  of  Chiches- 
ter. The  last  two,  however,  died  before  deprivation.  Percival's  Apol- 
ogy, p.  222. 


THE   MEDIATION    OF   THE   SCOTTISH    EPISCOPATE.  245 

jurors,  as  they  were  hence  called,  were  thereupon  deprived  of 
their  Sees  by  William,  and  others  more  compliant  were  ap- 
pointed in  their  places ;  by  reason  of  which  Dr.  John  Tillotson 
was  consecrated  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

Now,  certainly,  Tillotson  began  his  Arch-Episcopal  career 
as  an  intruder,  Bancroft  being  still  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, so  far  as  any  action  of  the  Church  was  concerned. 
Had  Bancroft  been  sustained  by  the  Bishops  of  his  Province, 
and  the  body  of  the  Clergy  and  people,  the  unity  of  the  Church 
would  have  been  with  him,  and  Tillotson  and  his  followers 
would  have  been  schismatics;  and  in  all  probability  the  end 
of  the  English  Establishment  would  have  been  the  result. 
But  success  has  its  power  in  ecclesiastical,  as  well  as  in 
worldly  matters.  In  point  of  fact  Tillotson  was  sustained 
not  only  by  the  public  opinion  of  the  day,  but  —  which  is  more 
to  the  point  —  by  the  majority  of  the  Bishops  of  his  Province; 
in  consequence  of  which  Bancroft  and  his  few  followers  were 
looked  upon  as  schismatics.  The  division  thus  created  con- 
tinued for  a  considerable  time,  and  the  non-juring  Bishops 
consecrated  others,  who,  in  turn,  endeavoured  to  continue  the 
line  by  consecrating  successors ;  but  eventually  all  the  surviv- 
ing adherents  to  this  party  were  reconciled  to  the  ex- 
isting state  of  things,  and  were  merged  into  the  body  of  the 
Church  again ;  although,  as  we  have  seen,  there  was  still  a 
remnant  of  the  non-juring  succession  in  England  at  the  time 
of  the  Connecticut  application  for  the  Episcopate. 

Thus  it  became  a  tradition  in  the  Church  of  England  to  re- 
gard the  non-jurors  as  schismatical.  The  piety  and  devotion 
of  these  men  were  indeed  so  marked,  and  their  sacrifices  for 
conscience  sake  were  so  great,  that  they  commanded  uni- 
versal respect  and  sincere  compassion ;  but  they  were  regarded 
as  misguided  men  in  respect  of  their  attitude  toward  the  rest 
of  the  Church.  And  it  was  perhaps  not  unnatural  that  the 
same  opinion  should  prevail  in  the  Church  of  England  with 


246  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

respect  to  all  who  were  classed  as  non-jurors,  although  the 
Church  of  England  properly  so  called  had  no  claim  upon  their 
allegiance.  Hence  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Scottish  Bishops, 
who  were  non-jurors  also,  were  considered  to  be  schismatics 
as  well ;  or,  at  least,  they  were  looked  upon  with  that  sort  of 
doubtful  regard  which  we  are  apt  to  bestow  upon  those  whose 
virtue  we  cannot  directly  impugn,  but  who  consort  with  people 
whose  virtue  we  do  decidedly  question. 

Yet  most  unjustly.  For  the  case  of  the  Scottish  non- 
jurors was  quite  different  from  that  of  the  English  non- 
jurors. The  Scottish  non- jurors  were  not  a  fractional  mi- 
nority of  the  body  of  a  National  Episcopate,  but  the  whole 
body  itself:  and  when  they  were  called  upon  to  suffer  the 
penalty  of  their  faithfulness,  there  was  no  one  among  them 
found  willing,  for  the  sake  of  preserving  the  worldly  power 
and  wealth  of  a  State  Episcopate,  to  leave  his  brethren  to 
carry  on  without  him  the  burden  of  a  "  free,  valid  and  purely 
ecclesiastical  Episcopacy."  So  there  was  no  schism  in  the 
Scotch  Church,  for  they  were  all  cast  out  of  the  sunlight  of 
royal  favour  together,  and  together  were  burdened  with  the 
heavy  penalties  of  a  persecuting  legislation. 

"  I  hope,"  said  the  politic  William  (who  valued  no  principle 
that  stood  in  the  way  of  his  own  interest,  and  was  as  ready 
to  use  Bishops,  as  he  was  Presbyters,  if  they  would  but  help 
to  settle  him  in  his  newly  taken  seat  upon  the  throne)  — ad- 
dressing the  venerable  Bishop  Rose  of  Edinburgh  —  "I  hope 
you  will  be  kind  to  me  "  in  Scotland  '*  and  follow  the  example 
of  England."  "  Sir,"  said  Rose  —  confessor  rather  than 
courtier  —  "I  will  serve  you  so  far  as  law,  reason  or  con- 
science shall  allow  me."  The  King  turned  coldly  away,  and 
the  fate  of  the  Scottish  Church  was  sealed.  Law,  reason  and 
conscience  were  inconvenient  qualifications,  at  least  for  the  alle- 
giance of  Scottish  Churchmen. 

Bishop  Rose  relates  this  incident  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Camp- 


THE    MEDIATION    OF   THE   SCOTTISH    EPISCOPATE.  247 

bell  which  is  quoted  by  Stephen  in  his  History  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,^  and  he  gives  in  the  same  connection  an  account 
of  the  overtures  which  had  been  made  to  him  just  before  his 
interview  with  William,  by  Compton,  Bishop  of  London, 
which  is  extremely  interesting  and  suggestive,  and  especially 
worthy  of  consideration  in  the  present  connection. 

"  Then  the  Bishop,  directing  his  discourse  to  me,  said  — 
"  My  Lord,  you  see  that  the  king  having  thrown  himself  upon 
the  water,  must  keep  himself  a-swimming  with  one  hand,  the 
Presbyterians  having  joined  him  closely,  and  offered  to  sup- 
port him,  and  therefore  he  cannot  cast  them  off,  unless  he 
could  see  how  otherwise  he  could  be  served.  And  the  king 
bids  me  tell  you,  that  he  now  knows  the  state  of  Scotland 
much  better  than  he  did  when  he  was  in  Holland;  for  while 
there  he  was  made  hclievo.  that  Scotland  generally  all  over  was 
Presbyterian,  but  now  he  sees  that  the  great  body  of  the  no- 
bility and  gentry  are  for  Episcopacy,  and  it  is  the  trading  and 
inferior  sort  that  are  for  Presbytery;  wherefore  he  bids  me 
tell  you,  that  if  you  will  undertake  to  serve  him  to  the  pur- 
pose that  he  is  served  here  in  England,  he  will  take  you  by 
the  hand,  support  the  Church  and  (your)  order,  and  throzv 
off  the  Presbyterians." 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  had  the  Scottish  Bishops  been  con- 
tent to  take  the  oath,  and  stand  on  the  ground  which  the 
English  Bishops  held,  they  would  have  been  protected  and 
strengthened  in  their  worldly  position,  as  their  English 
brethren  were.  But  then,  they  must  have  held  that  position 
under  the  same  restrictions.  And,  when  the  Bishop-Elect  of 
Connecticut  had  come  to  apply  to  them  for  consecration,  they 
could  but  have  given  him  the  same  answer  as  the  English  Bish- 
ops did,  advising  him  to  wait  —  and  to  keep  on  waiting  —  for  a 
Parliamentary    permission  which    in  all    human    probability 

8.  Vol.  Ill,  p.  377-8. 


248  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

would  never  have  been  granted :  and  the  Churchmen  in  this 
Country  would  have  been  fain  at  last  to  take  up  with  some 
poor  scheme  of  elected  Superintendents,  or  titular  Bishops, 
having  the  form  of  godliness  without  the  power  thereof. 

What  did  in  fact  happen  was,  as  we  have  seen,  that  not 
only  the  Bishops,  but  the  whole  Scottish  Church  as  well,  were 
delivered  over  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Presbyterians,  with 
the  result  that  in  William's  first  Parliament  in  Scotland 
Episcopacy  was  abolished ;  and  in  the  next  session  Presby- 
terian government  was  established.  And  a  systematic  course 
of  legal  persecutions  then  began,  which  was  for  many  years 
continued  with  great  severity. 

In  all  this  there  was  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  preser- 
vation of  a  valid  succession  of  Order,  or  the  continuance  of  a 
regular  jurisdiction  in  Scotland.  The  order  was  transmitted 
with  a  scrupulous  regularity;  and  the  jurisdiction  had  the  es- 
sential attributes  of  assignment  by  the  Episcopate  in  a 
country  not  previously  occupied  by  any  other  line  of  Bishops, 
and  of  the  concurrent  consent  of  the  Clergy  and  people  over 
whom  it  was  exercised.  If  the  absence  of  appointment  by  the 
civil  authority  constituted  a  defect  of  jurisdiction,  then  the 
defect  was  one  which  had  existed  also  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Apostles,  and  their  successors  in  the  Primitive  Church. 
The  Scottish  Bishops  held  their  Order  and  their  jurisdiction 
in  right  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Episcopate;  a  right 
which  was  wholly  independent  of  the  sanction  of  any  civil 
power,  and  which,  if  need  were,  was  to  be  asserted  in  spite 
of  proscription  by  the  civil  power. 

The  Scottish  Bishops  were  indeed  non-jurors,  as  were 
the  English  Bishops  in  the  line  of  Sancroft.  That  pe- 
culiarity these  two  classes  of  Bishops  possessed  in  common: 
but  in  respect  of  the  transmission  of  their  order  and  juris- 
diction they  were  totally  different  from  each  other.  The  Scot- 
tish   non-juring    Bishops    were     the    Episcopate    of    a    Na- 


THE    MEDIATION    OF   THE    SCOTTISH    EPISCOPATE.  249 

tional  and  independent  Church,  having  no  other  Episco- 
pate Opposed  to  them;  their  consecrations  were  regular, 
and  their  general  Episcopal  jurisdiction  was  lawfully  localized 
in  distinct  Sees  or  Dioceses.  The  English  non- jurors  were 
separate  in  fact  from  the  recognized  Episcopate  of  their  own 
Province  and  Nation,  were  either  without,  or  had  but  a  quasi- 
local  jurisdiction,  and  were  conspicuously  irregular  in  the 
transmission  of  their  order,  their  consecrations  being  some- 
times by  two  Bishops,  and  sometimes  even  by  only  one. 
These  characteristics  were  of  course  known  in  England,  and 
naturally  lacked  the  approval  of  the  Bishops  of  the  English 
Church.  But  although  none  of  the  reasons  which  justified 
those  Bishops  in  disapproving  of  the  English  non- jurors  were 
in  the  least  applicable  to  the  Scottish  non-jurors,  yet  it  would 
seem  that  they  were  both  included  in  a  common  reprobation. 
At  any  rate,  had  Bishop  Seabury  accepted  Bishop  Cart- 
wright's  offer  to  consecrate  him,  his  consecration  could  not 
have  been  more  studiously,  more  elaborately,  ignored  than  it 
was  in  the  subsequent  Establishmentarian  policy.  He  was  not 
received,  or  his  consecration  in  any  way  recognized  by  any 
English  Bishop  when  he  passed  through  England  on  his  re- 
turn home;  he  was  spoken  of  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury afterwards  "  with  great  delicacy  "  as  Dr.  Seabury ;  and 
the  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  propagating  the  Gospel,  of 
which  the  English  Bishops  were  the  most  influential  members, 
in  acknowledging  a  communication  from  him,  addressed  him 
simply  by  his  academic  title,  with  the  apparent  purpose  of  re- 
fusing to  allow  even  the  fact  of  his  consecration. 

And  later  when  Bishops  were  consecrated  by  the  Establish- 
mentarians  for  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  it  was  with  the 
understanding  that  they  should  not  join  with  the  Bishop  of 
Scotch  consecration  in  conferring  the  Episcopate  upon  any 
one  else,  until  another  person  should  have  been  sent  to  Eng- 
land to  be  consecrated;  and  when  the  other  person  was  sent. 


250  MEMOIR  OF  r.isrrop  seabury. 

Dr.  jVIadison  from  Virginia,  the  same  lesson,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  was  particularly  taught  to  him. 

And  this  understanding  was  acted  upon,  to  the  great 
jeopardy  of  the  perpetuation  of  the  American  Episcopate 
which  had  been  obtained  only  after  so  many  years  of  patient 
eflfort.  For  although  there  were  in  this  Country  in  1787, 
three  Bishops,  yet  those  of  Pennsylvania  and  of  New  York- 
refused  to  join  with  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  in  consecrating 
another.  And  the  Bishops  who  refused,  gave  their  obligation 
to  their  English  Consecrators  as  the  reason  for  their  refusal. 
Soon  after  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  this  Country 
there  was  a  movement  for  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Bass  as  Bishop  for  Massachusetts,  it  being  supposed  by  some 
who  had  not  even  yet  lost  all  their  illusions,  that  as  there  were 
three  Bishops  there  was  no  reason  why  they  should  not  unite 
in  the  consecration  of  a  fourth.  Bishop  White  of  Pennsyl- 
vania told  the  reason,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  viz;  that 
such  an  act  would  involve  "  the  breach  of  his  faith  impliedly 
pledged  as  he  apprehended ''  to  those  from  whom  he  had  re- 
ceived his  consecration.^ 

Bishop  Provoost  of  New  York  told  the  reason,  so  far  as  he 
was  concerned,  writing  to  Bishop  White  —  "  As  to  what  you 
style  an  implied  engagement  to  the  English  Bishops,  I  look 
upon  it  in  regard  to  myself  as  a  positive  one ;"  and  referring, 
in  another  letter  to  Bishop  White,  to  instructions  given  by  the 
Convention  of  New  York  as  having  been  worded  at  his  par- 
ticular request  in  a  manner  that  was  intended  to  prevent 
their  accession  to  any  scheme  of  union  "  which  might  endan- 
ger the  preservation  of  the  succession  of  our  Bishops  in  the 
English  line."i<> 

Bishop  Aladison,  consecrated  for  Virginia  in  1790,  made 
the  third  Bishop  of  English  consecration  and  instruction;  and 

9.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  142. 

10.  Connecticut  Church  Documents,  Hawks  and  Perry,  II,  350,  352. 


THE    MEDIATION    OF   THE    SCOTTISH    EPISCOPATE.  25I 

in  1792,  the  three  Bishops  of  the  EngHsh  hne  were  willing  to 
act  with  the  Bishop  of  the  Scottish  line  in  the  consecration  of 
Dr.  Claggett  as  Bishop  of  Maryland. 

Bishop  White  and  Bishop  Madison  thought  ''  that  the  sense 
of  the  Archbishop  was  fully  accomplished  by  the  presence  and 
assistance  of  the  canonical  number  in  the  English  line."  Be- 
sides, adds  Bishop  White  "  the  question  had  changed  its 
ground  by  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against  the  Scotch  Bishops; 
and  by  their  reception  in  their  proper  character  in  England."^^ 

No  change  in  the  laws  of  England  could  have  had  such 
retroactive  effect  as  to  make  the  Bishop  consecrated  by  the 
Scottish  Bishops  in  1784,  more  rightly  and  lawfully  a  Bishop 
than  he  was  at  the  time  of  his  consecration  and  throughout 
the  eight  years  in  which  the  petty  spite  of  English  prejudice 
had  caused  to  be  suspended  the  perpetuation  of  the  American 
line. 

The  real  reason  for  admitting  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  to 
a  share  in  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Claggett  must  be  found 
in  the  supposition  that  it  could  do  no  harm,  since  the  English 
three  were  sufficient  without  him. 

But  through  Bishop  Claggett  every  Bishop  since  consecrated 
in  the  American  Episcopate  traces  his  line  of  Episcopal  succes- 
sion; and  thus  every  one  of  these  Bishops  derives  his  Epis- 
copate from  the  Scottish  line  as  well  as  from  the  English  line. 

So  God  overruled  the  malice  of  those  Bishops  who,  having 
through  their  connection  with  the  State  been  deprived  of 
the  opportunity  of  being  the  first  to  transmit  the  Apostolic  suc- 
cession to  the  Western  World,  sought  to  secure  the  credit  of 
an  action  which  they  had  been  afraid  to  perform,  by  depreciat- 
ing an  Episcopacy  which  they  knew  to  be  as  valid  as  their 
own.  And  so  the  act  of  the  Scottish  Bishops  in  consecrating  a 
Bishop  for  Connecticut,  has  in  the  Providence  of  God  stamped 

II.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  144. 


252  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

an  impress  on  the  American  Episcopate  which  will  last  as  long 
as  the  power  of  the  American  succession  to  perpetuate  itself 
shall  endure. 

And  in  the  preparation  of  the  Scottish  Episcopate  for  the 
fulfillment  of  that  mission  of  mediation  to  which  God  had  called 
them  in  respect  of  the  American  succession,  the  Scottish  Bish- 
ops were  made  instrumental  in  the  restoration  of  the  broken 
unity  of  the  Episcopal  chain,  by  connecting  one  of  the  links  of 
the  English  non-juring  succession  with  their  own.  For  among 
these  English  non-juring  Bishops  was  one,  Dr.  George  Hickes, 
who  joined  in  the  consecration  of  one  of  the  Scottish  Bishops 
in  the  line  which  led  down  to  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut/-  and 
remarkable  to  relate,  every  other  branch  of  that  English  non- 
juring  line  (and  there  were  several  of  them)  died  out  without 
succession.  So  that  the  Episcopal  line  which  diverged  with 
Sancroft,  actually  came  back  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  the 
lawful  line  of  the  National  Episcopate  of  Scotland:  and  thus 
through  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  were  transmitted  to  the 
American  Episcopate  both  the  line  of  the  Scottish  succession 
derived  through  English  channels  from  pre-Reformation  and 
primitive  sources,  and  also  the  line  of  those  who  had  been 
deprived  in  England  by  William  III,  after  the  Revolution  of 
1688. 

Short  sighted  indeed  was  that  prejudice  which  made  the 
English  Bishops,  and  those  whom  they  consecrated  for  us  in 
1787,  cast  doubtful  glances  upon  the  consecration  of  1784;  and 
led  them  to  such  scrupulous  circumspection  lest  they  should 
seem  to  permit  the  American  succession  to  depend  for  the  com- 
pletion of  its  canonical  number  of  consecrators,  upon  the 
Bishop  of  Connecticut.  And  much  reason  have  we  to  be  thankful 
that  the  life  of  that  Bishop  was  preserved  until  their  scrupu- 
lous, though  dangerous,  nicety  was  satisfied:  for  had  he  died 

12.  Bishop  Gadderer  was  consecrated,  February  24,  1712,  by  Bishop 
Hickes,  Bishop  Campbell,  and  Bishop  John  Falconer. 


THE    MEDIATION    OF   THE    SCOTTISH    EPISCOPATE.  253 

before  the  three  Bishops  consecrated  in  England  were  ready  to 
perform  their  first  consecration  in  this  Country ,we  should  indeed 
have  had  the  Episcopal  succession,  but  we  should  have  been  de- 
prived of  the  happiness  of  tracing  it  through  those  who  had 
lived  to  show  to  the  world  the  possibility  of  maintaining  the 
succession  without  the  help  of  the  Establishment,  and  in  spite 
of  tyrannical  efforts  to  stamp  it  out  of  existence.  Nor  should 
we  have  had  the  privilege  of  showing  the  concentration  of 
several  lines  sometime  separated,  but  now  in  our  succession 
united;  and  thereby  symbolizing  the  true  purpose  and  motive 
of  the  Episcopate  as  the  Divinely  appointed  centre  of  unity  in 
the  Church  of  Christ. 


B 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

LAST  DAYS  IN  ENGLAND. 

1784-1785. 

ISHOP  SEABURY'S  JOURNAL,  to  which  we  shall 
later  have  occasion  to  refer  as  recording  some  of  his 
Episcopal  experiences  in  America,  is  marked  by  him  as 
Journal  B.  From  this  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  he  had  kept 
an  earlier  Journal  marked  A.  This  earlier  volume,  however, 
has  not  been  preserved  among  his  papers,  and,  if  it  be  in  fact 
still  extant,  has  not  been  elsewhere  discovered.  One  can  only- 
regret  that  no  such  source  of  information  as  to  the  manner  of 
his  life  during  the  period  between  his  consecration  and  his  de- 
parture for  home,  is  accessible.  As  it  is,  the  information  as  to 
his  experience  in  that  period  is  but  scant,  and  is  to  be  obtained 
mostly  from  letters  of  his  which  have  survived,  and  from 
occasional  references  to  him  in  the  letters  of  others. 

It  would  appear  from  these  sources  that,  in  the  afternoon 
of  the  Sunday  on  which  he  was  consecrated,  he  preached  in 
Aberdeen  at  the  chapel  in  which  the  consecration  took  place ;  ^ 
that  he  went  from  Aberdeen  some  time  before  the  third  of  De- 
cember, to  Edinburgh,  whence  he  went  on  to  London  about  the 
middle  of  December,  remaining  there  until  he  sailed.  His  let- 
ter to  Dr.  Boucher,  hereafter  quoted,  is  dated  "  Edinburgh, 
Dec.  3.  1784;"  and  in  this  he  speaks  of  his  purpose  to  be  in 
London  in  ten  days.     He  was  expected  in  London  December 

I.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  156-7. 

254 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  255 

17th,  as  appears  from  a  letter  of  Rev.  Jacob  Duche.-  He  was 
at  ^8  Norton  Street  London,  in  the  first  part  of  January,  as  ap- 
pears from  a  letter  of  Dr.  Home  addressed  to  him  at  that  place 
under  date  of  January  3,  1785.  He  dates  the  letter  to  the 
Connecticut  Clergy,  ''London,  January,  5,  1785  "  and  one  to 
Dr.  Morice,  "  London  February  27,  1785 ;"  and  Dr.  Chandler, 
writing  of  him  to  Bishop  Skinner,  April  23,  1785,  says  "  he 
left  the  Downs  on  the  15*^  of  last  month;  on  the  19*^  was 
sixty-five  leagues  west  of  the  Lizzard  with  a  fair  prospect  of  a 
good  passage,  at  which  time  he  wrote  to  me."  ^  This  report  of 
Dr.  Chandler  is  confirmed  by  two  notes  written  by  Bishop 
Seabury  to  his  friend  Dr.  Sylvester  Gardiner,  one  dated  at  the 
Downs  March  15th,  and  the  other  at  65  miles  west  of  the  Liz- 
zard.* The  first  of  these  notes  is  particularly  valuable,  con- 
taining evidence  which  I  have  nowhere  else  seen  as  to  the 
due  observance  of  the  proprieties,  on  the  part  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury,  by  a  farewell  call  on  the  Archbishops;  and,  on  their 
part,  by  their  polite  reception  of  the  same;  and  also  as  to  the 
name  of  the  ship  in  which  he  sailed,  concerning  which  he  seems 
to  have  changed  the  purpose  expressed  in  one  of  his  letters ; 
and  further,  as  to  the  fact  that  he  went  to  Halifax  to  see  his 
children  —  though  which  of  them  were  then  there  does  not 
appear.  The  following  extract  from  this  note  bears  upon 
these  points  : 

^'  My  business  in  Scotland  was  completed  on  the  14^^  of 
Nov.  In  December  I  returned  to  London,  and  had  no  inter- 
course with  the  great  men  of  the  Church  till  the  last  of  Febru- 
ary when  I  went  to  take  leave  of  the  two  Archbishops.  They 
received  me  with  the  greatest  politeness,  and  parted  with  me 

2.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  170. 

3.  Ibid.,  p.  179. 

4.  For  the  use  of  these  notes  I  am  indebted  to  the  Rev<3.  Henry 
A.  Parker  who  was  allowed  to  copy  the  originals  in  possession  of  the 
late  Mrs.  Margaret  Elton,  a  great-granddaughter  of  Dr.  Gardiner, 


256  MEMOIR   OF    BlSllOr    SEAliURY. 

in  the  most  friendly  and  affectionate  manner.  So  that  I  hope 
I  shall  be  able  to  keep  up  a  proper  hitercoursc  with  them.  I 
have  taken  my  passage  in  the  Ship  Chapman  Capt.  Dawson,  for 
Halifax,  that  I  may  visit  my  children  before  I  sit  down  in  Con- 
necticut, where  I  hope  to  be  sometime  in  May." 

These  references  give  us  all  the  knowledge  that  seems  at- 
tainable in  reference  to  this  part  of  Bishop  Seabury's  life. 
Why  he  should  have  delayed  for  four  months  the  return  which 
he  had  during  the  last  year  been  so  anxious  to  expedite,  does 
not  appear:  but,  presumably,  he  had  good  reasons  for  the  de- 
lay ;  and,  certainly,  the  letters  which  he  wrote  in  the  last  days 
of  his  sojourn  in  Great  Britain  are  not  among  the  least  valu- 
able of  his  works,  as  it  is  hoped  will  by  and  by  more  fully 
appear. 

One  event  which  occurred  during  his  stay  in  London,  which 
Dr.  Beardsley  does  not  mention,  and  of  which  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  no  written  account  has  ever  been  given,  is  nevertheless 
of  considerable  interest.  The  Rev^.  Jacob  Duche,  above  men- 
tioned, who  appears  to  have  contracted  a  strong  regard  and 
admiration  for  Bishop  Seabury,  of  which  he  writes  to  the 
Rev^.  Mr.  White  in  Philadelphia,  speaks  in  his  letter  of  ex- 
pecting Bishop  Seabury  in  London  on  the  17th  of  December. 
Whether  he  expected  him  as  his  guest,  or  merely  as  a  sojourner 
in  the  town,  does  not  appear;  but  it  was,  no  doubt,  through 
this  connection  that  the  acquaintance  of  Bishop  Seabury  was 
then  made  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Duche's  son,  Mr.  Thomas  Spence 
Duche,  who  was  an  artist,  and  had  been  a  pupil  of  the  cele- 
brated Benjamin  West.  This  acquaintance  led  to  the  painting 
of  the  portrait  of  Bishop  Seabury  by  Mr.  Duche,  a  picture 
which  is  said  to  have  received  its  finishing  touches  from  West 
himself.  Whether  the  portrait  was  then  finished  is  uncertain, 
but  it  must  have  been  at  this  time  that  the  Bishop  sat,  or  rather 
stood,  for  it.  The  portrait  was  engraved  by  William  Sharp 
an  eminent  engraver  of  that  day:  and  the  engraving  is  well 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  257 

known  in  England  and  Scotland,  as  well  as  in  the  United  States  ; 
and,  wherever  it  exists,  perpetuates  a  very  noble  presentation  of 
its  subject.  What  became  of  the  plate  of  this  engraving  I  do 
not  know.  Perhaps  some  one  of  those  who  are  curious  in  such 
matters  may  ascertain  its  whereabouts  some  day,  as  the  repu- 
tation of  Sharp  seems  to  have  been  such  as  to  make  his  works 
worth  considering.  But  there  are  some  associations  which  the 
portrait  has  which  dispose  me  to  dwell  a  moment  on  its  his- 
tory. 

The  Rev^.  Dr.  Duche  was,  at  the  first  breaking  out  of  the 
Revolution  in  this  Country  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Phila- 
delphia ;  and,  being  apparently  sympathetic  with  the  Patriots, 
was  appointed  the  Chaplain  of  the  Congress  at  its  first  ses- 
sion; but  observing,  I  suppose,  what  took  place  at  this  Con- 
gress, and  "  doubting  whereunto  these  things  would  grow," 
he  thought  it  prudent  to  transfer  his  residence  to  England. 
Upon  his  retirement  he  was  succeeded  in  the  Philadelphia  Rec- 
torate,  and  the  Chaplaincy  of  Congress,  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
White;  and  at  a  later  period  of  his  life,  after  Mr.  White  had 
become  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  he  returned  to  Philadelphia. 
From  his  regard  for  Bishop  Seabury,  and  the  consequent  in- 
terest of  his  son  Mr.  Thomas  Spence  Duche,  it  may  be  im- 
agined that  the  painting  of  this  portrait  was  a  labour  of  love. 
The  fruit  of  love's  labour,  however,  was  not  bestowed  upon 
the  Bishop,  but  remained  with  the  artist.  I  have  been  in- 
formed that,  having  been  afterwards  brought  to  this  Country, 
the  Portrait  was  presented  by  Bishop  White,  on  behalf  of  a 
sister  of  the  artist,  to  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut;  and  was 
lodged  in  Trinity  College  where  it  still  exists  in  good  preserva- 
tion. Some  years  later  when  Dean  Hoffman  was  enriching 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  in  New  York  with  his  many 
beneficences,  he  procured  the  loan  of  this  portrait,  and  had  a 
copy  of  it  made  by  Mr.  Yewell,  and  presented  it  to  the  Sem- 
inary; in  the  Refectory  of  which,  in  Hoffman  Hall,  it  now 


25S  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

hangs.  Recently,  in  the  autumn  of  1907,  another  copy  of  the 
portrait,  made  by  Miss  Mihh-ed  Jordan,  was,  through  the  Hb- 
erality  and  pubHc  spirit  of  Air.  George  Dudley  Seymour,  pre- 
sented to  Yale  College,  in  commemoration  of  Bishop  Seabury's 
association  with  that  College  as  one  of  its  graduates  in  the  class 
of  1748.=^ 

Three  of  the  letters  to  which  reference  has  been  made  it 
will  be  necessary  to  present  in  full,  both  because  of  their  his- 
torical value,  and  because  they  reflect  so  much  honour  upon 
their  writer  that  it  would  be  inexcusable  to  omit  them  from  an 
account  of  his  life.  They  are  the  letter  which  he  addressed 
to  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut  after  his  consecration,  the  letter 
which  he  wrote  to  his  friend  the  Rev^.  Jonathan  Boucher,  and 
that  which  he  addressed  to  the  Society  for  propagating  the 
Gospel,  through  its  secretary,  the  Rev^.  Dr.  Morice.  It  is  pro- 
posed to  present  them  in  this  order,  although  the  Boucher  let- 
ter is  of  the  earliest  date,  because  of  the  bearing  which  the 
Boucher  and  Morice  letters  have  upon  the  effort  which  he  was 
making  to  preserve  for  the  aid  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut 
the  stipends  of  the  Society  upon  which  the  Clergy  had  hitherto 
been  so  largely  dependent  for  their  support.  These  letters 
will  speak  for  themselves  and  need  no  comment. 

5.  It  may  perhaps  be  as  well  to  mention  in  this  connection,  that 
two  portraits  of  Bishop  Seabury  were  painted  in  this  Country  after 
his  return ;  one  by  Earle  and  the  other  by  an  artist  whose  name  I  never 
heard.  Both  of  these  are  excellent  paintings.  That  by  Earle,  in  the 
Episcopal  robes,  represents  the  subject  as  in  a  sitting  posture.  This 
painting  was  inherited  by  my  father,  and  was  given  by  him  to  his 
'daughter  Lydia,  wife  of  Samuel  Peters  Bell,  Esqr.,  and  is  now  the 
property  of  their  son,  Mr.  Samuel  Seabury  Bell.  The  other  portrait 
is  in  a  standing  position,  and  also  in  the  Episcopal  dress.  The  Bishop's 
son,  Mr.  Edward  Seabury,  had  this  portrait  of  his  father  made,  and 
gave  it  to  his  sister  Violetta,  wife  of  Charles  Nicol  Taylor,  Esq.,  by 
whose  daughter,  Sarah  Maria,  wife  of  Capt.  Thomas  H.  Merry,  it  was 
presented  to  my  father,  who  left  it  to  me. —  W.  J.  S. 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  259 

But  before  presenting  them  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  notice  the 
interchange  of  notes,  in  January,  1785,  between  the  Bishop  and 
Dr.  George  Home  the  Dean  of  Canterbury.  The  Dean's  note 
has  already  been  referred  to  in  another  connection.  The  en- 
tire passage  from  which  the  extract  was  previously  made  is  as 
follows : 

"  You  do  me  but  justice  in  supposing  me  a  hearty  friend  to 
the  American  Episcopacy.  I  am  truly  sorry  that  our  Cabinet 
here  would  not  save  you  the  trouble  of  going  to  Scotland  for  it. 
There  is  some  uneasiness  about  it,  I  find,  since  it  is  done.  It 
is  said  you  have  been  precipitate  about  it.  I  should  be  in- 
clined to  think  so  too,  had  any  hopes  been  left  of  obtaining 
consecration  from  England.  But  if  none  were  left,  what  could 
you  do  but  what  you  have  done  ?  " 

Dr.  Beardsley  quotes,  though  without  giving  any  authority 
for  the  quotation,  an  extract  from  Bishop  Seabury's  reply  to 
the  Dean,  which  is  as  follows : 

"  God  grant  that  I  may  never  have  greater  cause  to  con- 
demn myself  than  in  the  conduct  of  this  business.  I  have 
endeavoured  to  get  it  forward  easily  and  quietly,  without  noise, 
party  or  heat;  and  I  cannot  but  be  pleased  that  no  fault  but 
precipitancy  is  brought  against  me.  That  implies  that  I  have 
needlessly  hurried  the  matter,  but  is  an  acknowledgment  that 
the  matter  was  right  in  itself.  .  .  .  From  education  and 
habit,  as  well  as  from  a  sense  of  her  real  excellence,  I  have  a 
sincere  veneration  for  the  Church  of  England,  and  I  am 
grieved  to  see  the  power  of  her  Bishops  restrained  by  her  con- 
nection with  the  State.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  my  applica- 
tion, I  am  confident,  would  have  met  with  a  very  different  re- 
ception." ® 

No  doubt  the  Bishop's  confidence  in  this  respect  was  not 
misplaced.     It  is  not  difficult  to  make  an  allowance  for  the  fet- 

6.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  164. 


260  MEMOIR  OF   BISIIOr   SEABURY. 

tcred  condition  of  the  Bishops  to  whom  he  refers;  nor  to 
understand  that  tied  and  bound  as  they  were,  they  could  not 
have  granted  his  appHcation,  But  that  affords  no  excuse  for 
the  freezing  out  poHcy,  which  their  settled  resentment  of  his 
success  without  their  permission  induced  them  afterwards  to 
inaugurate,  and  scrupulously  to  impart  to  their  American  suc- 
cessors. In  the  one  course  they  deserve  some  sympathy :  as  to 
the  other  —  the  least  that  can  justly  be  said  is  that  it  savours 
more  of  the  earthen  vessel,  than  of  the  grace  which  that 
vessel  is  supposed  to  contain. 

To  the  Rev^.  Messrs.  Leaming,  Jarvis  and  Hubbard,  of  the 
Connecticut  Clergy,  the  following  letter  was  written  from  Lon- 
don, January  5th,  1785 : 

*'  My  very  dear  and  worthy  friends, — 

It  is  with  very  great  pleasure  that  I  now  inform  you,  that  my 
business  here  is  perfectly  completed,  in  the  best  way  that  I 
have  been  able  to  transact  it.  Your  letter,  and  also  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Leaming,  which  accompanied  the  act  of  your  Legisla- 
ture, certified  by  Mr.  Secretary  Wyllys,  overtook  me  at  Edin- 
burgh, in  my  journey  to  the  north,  and  not  only  gave  me  great 
satisfaction,  but  were  of  great  service  to  me. 

I  met  with  a  very  kind  reception  from  the  Scotch  Bishops, 
who  having  read  and  considered  such  papers  as  I  laid  before 
them,  consisting  of  the  copies  of  my  original  letters  and  testi- 
monial, and  of  your  subsequent  letters,  declared  themselves 
perfectly  satisfied,  and  said  that  they  conceived  themselves 
called  upon,  in  the  course  of  God's  Providence,  without  regard 
to  any  human  policy,  to  impart  a  pure,  valid,  and  free  Epis- 
copacy to  the  western  world;  and  that  they  trusted  that  God, 
who  had  begun  so  good  a  work,  would  water  the  infant  Church 
in  Connecticut  with  his  heavenly  grace,  and  protect  it  by  his 
good  providence,  and  make  it  the  glory  and  pattern  of  the  pure 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  world ;  and  that  as  it  was  freed  from 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  261 

all  incumbrance  arising  from  connection  with  civil  establish- 
ments and  human  policy,  the  future  splendor  of  its  primitive 
simplicity  and  Christian  piety  would  appear  to  be  eminently 
and  entirely  the  work  of  God  and  not  of  man.  On  the  14^^ 
of  Nov.  my  consecration  took  place,  at  Aberdeen  (520  miles 
from  hence).  It  was  the  most  solemn  day  I  ever  passed;  God 
grant  I  may  never  forget  it ! 

I  now  only  wait  for  a  good  ship  in  which  to  return.  None 
will  sail  before  the  last  of  February  or  first  of  March.  The 
ship  Triumph,  Capt.  Stout,  will  be  among  the  first.  With 
this  same  Stout,  commander,  and  in  the  Triumph,  I  expect  to 
embark,  and  hope  to  be  in  New  York  some  time  in  April ;  your 
prayers  and  good  wishes  will,  I  know,  attend  me. 

A  new  scene  will  now,  my  dear  Gentlemen,  in  all  proba- 
bility open  in  America.  Much  do  I  depend  on  you  and  the 
other  good  Clergymen  in  Connecticut,  for  advice  and  support, 
in  an  office  which  will  otherwise  prove  too  heavy  for  me. 
Their  support,  I  assure  myself,  I  shall  have;  and  I  flatter  my- 
self they  will  not  doubt  of  my  hearty  desire,  and  earnest  en- 
deavor, to  do  everything  in  my  power  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Church,  and  promotion  of  religion  and  piety.  You  will  be 
pleased  to  consider  whether  New  London  be  the  proper  place 
for  me  to  reside  at;  or  whether  some  other  place  would  do 
better.  At  New  London,  however,  I  suppose  they  make  some 
dependence  upon  me.  This  ought  to  be  taken  into  the  con- 
sideration. If  I  settle  at  New  London,  I  must  have  an  assist- 
ant. Look  out,  then  for  some  good  clever  young  gentleman 
who  will  go  immediately  into  deacon's  orders,  and  who  would 
be  willing  to  be  with  me  in  that  capacity.  And  indeed  I  must 
think  it  a  matter  of  propriety,  that  as  many  worthy  candidates 
be  in  readiness  for  orders  as  can  be  procured.  Make  the  way, 
I  beseech  you,  as  plain  and  easy  for  me  as  you  can. 

Since  my  return  from  Scotland,  I  have  seen  none  of  the 
Bishops,  but  I  have  been  informed  that  the  step  I  have  taken 


262  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

has  displeased  the  two  Archbishops,  and  it  is  now  a  matter  of 
doubt  whether  I  shall  be  continued  on  the  Society's  list.  The 
day  before  I  set  out  on  my  northern  journey,  I  had  an  inter- 
view with  each  of  the  Archbishoi)s,  when  my  design  was 
avowed ;  so  that  the  measure  was  known,  though  it  has  made 
no  noise. 

My  own  poverty  is  one  of  the  greatest  discouragements  I 
have.  Two  years'  absence  from  my  family,  and  expensive 
residence  here,  has  more  than  expended  all  I  had.  But  in  so 
good  a  cause,  and  of  such  magnitude,  something  must  be 
risked  by  somebody.  To  my  lot  it  has  fallen;  I  have  done  it 
cheerfully,  and  despair  not  of  a  happy  issue. 

This  I  believe  is  the  last  time  I  shall  write  to  you  from 
this  country.  Will  you  then  accept  your  Bishop's  blessing, 
and  hearty  prayers  for  your  happiness  in  this  world  and  the 
next?  May  God  bless  also,  and  keep,  all  the  Good  Clergy  of 
Connecticut ! 

I  am,  reverend  and  dear  brethren,  your  aflfectionate  brother, 
and  very  humble  servant, 

Samuel  Seabury." 

The  letter  to  the  Rev^.  Jonathan  Boucher  now  follows : 

"  Edinburgh,  December  3,  1784. 
My  very  dear  sir: 

I  promised  to  write  you  as  soon  as  a  certain  event  took 
place,  and  I  have  not  till  now  made  good  my  promise.  In 
truth,  I  have  not  had  opportunity  to  collect  my  thoughts  on  the 
subject  on  which  I  wished  to  write  you ;  and  even  now  I  expect 
every  minute  to  be  called  upon,  and  probably  this  letter  will 
go  unfinished  to  you. 

Dr.  Chandler,  I  suppose,  has  informed  you  that  my  conse- 
cration took  place  on  the  14*^  of  November  at  Aberdeen.  I 
found  great  candor,  piety,  and  good  sense  among  the  Scotch 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND,  263 

Bishops  and  also  among  the  Clergy  with  whom  I  have  con- 
versed. The  Bishops  expect  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut  will 
form  their  own  Liturgy  and  Offices ;  yet  they  hope  the  English 
Liturgy,  which  is  the  one  they  use,  will  be  retained,  except  the 
Communion  Office,  and  that  they  wish  should  give  place  to  the 
one  in  Edward  the  Sixth's  Prayer  Book.  This  matter  I  have 
engaged  to  lay  before  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  and  they  will 
be  left  to  their  own  judgment  which  to  prefer.  Some  of  the 
Congregations  in  Scotland  use  one  and  some  the  other  Office ; 
but  they  communicate  with  each  other  on  every  occasion  that 
offers.  On  political  subjects  not  a  word  was  said.  Indeed, 
their  attachment  to  a  particular  family  is  wearing  off,  and  I 
am  persuaded  a  little  good  policy  in  England  would  have  great 
effect  here. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  know  nothing,  and  am  conscious  that  I 
have  done  nothing  that  ought  to  interrupt  my  connection  with 
the  Church  of  England.  The  Church  in  Connecticut  has  only 
done  her  duty  in  endeavoring  to  obtain  an  Episcopacy  for 
herself,  and  I  have  only  done  my  duty  in  carrying  her  en- 
deavors into  execution.  Political  reasons  prevented  her  appli- 
cation from  being  complied  with  in  England.  It  was  natural 
in  the  next  instance  to  apply  to  Scotland,  whose  Episcopacy, 
though  now  under  a  cloud,  is  the  very  same  in  every  ecclesi- 
astical sense,  with  the  English. 

His  Grace  of  Canterbury  apprehended  that  my  obtaining 
consecration  in  Scotland  would  create  jealousies  and  schisms 
in  the  Church,  that  the  Moravian  Bishops  in  America  would 
be  hereby  induced  to  ordain  clergymen,  and  that  the  Phila- 
delphian  clergy  would  be  encouraged  to  carry  into  effect  their 
plan  of  constituting  a  nominal  Episcopacy  by  the  joint  suf- 
frages of  clergymen  and  laymen. 

But  when  it  is  considered  that  the  Moravian  Bishops  can- 
not ordain  Clergymen  of  our  Church,  unless  requested  to  do 
so,  and  that  when  there  shall  be  a  Bishop  in  America,  there 


264  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

will  be  no  ground  to  make  such  a  request ;  and  that  the  Phlla- 
dclphian  plan  was  only  proposed  on  the  supposition  of  real  and 
absolute  necessity ;  which  necessity  cannot  exist  when  there  is  a 
Bishop  resident  in  America,  every  apprehension  of  this  kind 
must,  I  think,  vanish  and  be  no  more.  My  own  inclination  is 
to  cultivate  as  close  a  connection  and  union  with  the  Church 
of  England,  as  that  Church  and  the  political  state  of  the  two 
countries  shall  permit.  I  have  grown  up  and  lived  hitherto 
under  the  influence  of  the  highest  veneration  for  and  attach- 
ment to  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  the  service  of  the 
Society,  and  my  hope  is  to  promote  the  interest  of  that 
Church  with  greater  effect  than  ever,  and  to  establish  it  in  the 
full  enjoyment  of  its  whole  government  and  discipline. 

And  I  think  it  highly  probable  that  I  may  be  of  real  service 
to  this  Country,  by  promoting  a  connection  with  that  country 
in  religious  matters  without  any  breach  of  duty  to  the  State 
in  which  I  shall  live.  I  cannot  help  considering  it  as  an  in- 
stance of  bad  policy,  that  my  application  for  consecration  was 
rejected  in  England;  and  I  intend  no  offense  when  I  say,  that 
I  think  the  policy  would  still  be  worse  should  the  Society  on 
this  occasion  discharge  me  from  their  service,  which  his  Grace 
of  York,  in  my  last  interview  with  him,  said  would  certainly 
be  the  case.  That  indeed  would  make  a  schism  between  the 
two  Churches,  and  put  it  out  of  my  power  to  preserve  that 
friendly  intercourse  and  communion  which  I  earnestly  wish. 
It  might  also  bring  on  explanations  which  would  be  disagree- 
able to  me,  and,  I  imagine,  to  the  Society  also.  However, 
should  the  Society  itself  be  obliged  to  take  such  a  step,  though 
I  shall  be  sorry  for  it,  and  hurt  by  it,  I  shall  not  be  dejected. 
If  my  father  and  my  mother  forsake  me,  if  the  Governors  of 
the  Church  and  the  Society  discard  me,  I  shall  still  be  that 
humble  pensioner  of  Divine  Providence  which  I  have  been 
through  my  whole  life.  God,  I  trust,  will  take  me  up,  con- 
tinue his  goodness  to  me,  and  bless  my  endeavors  to  serve  the 


LAST   DAYS    IN    ENGLAND  265 

cause  of  his  infant  Church  in  Connecticut.  I  trust,  sir,  that 
it  is  not  the  loss  of  £50  per  annum  that  I  dread, —  though  that 
is  an  object  of  some  importance  to  a  man  who  has  nothing, — ■ 
but  the  consequences  that  must  ensue,  the  total  alienation  of 
regard  and  affection. 

You  can  make  such  use  of  this  letter  as  you  think  proper. 
If  I  can  command  so  much  time,  I  will  write  to  Dr.  Morice 
on  the  subject.  If  not,  I  will  see  him  as  soon  as  I  return  to 
London,  which  will  be  in  ten  days. 

Please  to  present  my  regards  to  Mr.  Stevens  and  all  friends, 
and  believe  me  to  be,  with  the  greatest  esteem. 

Your  affectionate,  humble  servant, 

S.  S." 

Fortunately,  Bishop  Seabury  was  able  to  command  so  much 
time  as  to  write  to  Dr.  Morice,  otherwise  posterity  would  have 
suffered  the  loss  of  a  very  good  letter,  the  copy  of  which  in 
the  Letter  Book  follows  the  copy  of  that  to  Mr.  Boucher : 

"  From  Bp.  Seabury  to  Dr.  Morice,  Secretary  to  the  Society 
for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts,  on  the 
Bps.  leaving  England  to  return  to  America    dated  London, 
Feby.  2.y.   1785. 
Reverend  Sir, 

When  the  articles  of  the  late  peace  were  published  in  Amer- 
ica, it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  members  of  the  Church 
of  England  must  have  been  under  many  anxious  apprehensions 
concerning  the  fate  of  the  church.  The  great  distance  between 
England  and  America  had  always  subjected  them  to  many 
difficulties  in  the  essential  article  of  ordination:  and  the  inde- 
pendency of  that  Country  gave  rise  to  new  ones  that  appeared 
unsurmountable.  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders  could  no  longer 
take  the  oaths  required  in  the  English  ordination  Offices,  and 
without  doing  so,  they  could  not  be  ordained.     The  Episcopal 


266  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Church  in  America  must,  under  such  circumstances,  cease, 
whenever  it  should  please  God  to  take  their  present  ministers 
from  them,  unless  some  adequate  means  could  be  adopted  to 
procure  a  regular  succession  of  clergymen.  Under  these  im- 
pressions the  Clergy  of  Connecticut  met  together  as  soon  as 
they  possibly  could;  and  on  the  most  deliberate  consideration, 
they  saw  no  remedy  but  the  actual  settlement  of  a  Bishop 
among  them.  They  therefore  determined  to  make  an  effort 
to  procure  that  blessing  from  the  English  Church,  to  which 
they  hoped,  under  every  change  of  civil  polity,  to  remain 
united:  and  commissioned  The  Rev^.  Mr.  Abraham  Jarvis  of 
Middlctown  in  Connecticut  to  go  to  New  York  and  consult 
such  of  the  Clergy  there  as  he  thought  prudent  on  the  subject 
and  procure  their  concurrence.  He  was  also  directed  to  try 
to  prevail  on  the  Rev^.  Mr.  Leaming  or  me  to  undertake  a 
voyage  to  England  and  endeavor  to  obtain  Episcopal  Conse- 
cration for  Connecticut.  Mr.  Leaming  declined  on  account 
of  his  age  and  infirmities :  and  the  Clergy  who  were  consulted 
by  Mr.  Jarvis  gave  it  as  their  decided  opinion  that  I  ought,  in 
duty  to  the  Church,  to  comply  with  the  request  of  the  Con- 
necticut Clergy.  Though  I  foresaw  many  and  great  difficulties 
in  the  way,  yet  as  I  hoped  they  might  all  be  overcome ;  and  as 
Mr.  Jarvis  had  no  instruction  to  make  the  proposal  to  any  one 
besides,  and  was,  with  the  other  Clergy,  of  opinion  the  design 
would  drop  if  I  declined  it,  I  gave  my  consent ;  and  arrived  in 
England  the  beginning  of  July,  1*783,  endeavoring  according 
to  the  best  of  my  ability  and  discretion  to  accomplish  the  busi- 
ness on  which  I  came.  It  would  be  disagreeable  to  me  to 
recapitulate  the  difficulties  which  arose  and  defeated  the  meas- 
ure ;  and  to  enter  on  a  detail  of  my  own  conduct  in  the  matter 
is  needless,  as  his  Grace  of  Cant^.,  and  his  Grace  of  York  with 
other  members  of  the  Society,  are  well  acquainted  with  all  the 
circumstances. 

Finding  at  the  end  of  the  last  session  of  Parliament,  that 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND  267 

no  permission  was  given  for  consecrating  a  Bishop  for  Con- 
necticut or  any  of  the  American  States,  in  the  Act  enabhng  the 
Lord  Bishop  of  London  to  ordain  foreign  candidates  for  Dea- 
cons and  Priests  orders ;  and  understanding  that  a  requisi- 
tion or  at  least  a  formal  acquiescence  of  Congress  or  of  the 
Supreme  Authority  in  some  particular  State,  would  be  ex- 
pected before  such  permission  would  be  granted;  and  that  a 
diocese  must  be  formed,  and  a  stated  revenue  appointed  for 
the  Bishop,  previously  to  his  consecration,  I  absolutely  de- 
spaired of  ever  seeing  such  a  measure  succeed  in  England.  I 
therefore  thought  it  not  only  justifiable  but  a  matter  of  duty 
to  endeavour  to  obtain  wherever  it  could  be  had  a  valid  Epis- 
copacy for  the  Church  in  Connecticut  which  consists  of  more 
than  30,000  members.  I  knew  that  the  Bishops  in  Scotland 
derived  their  succession  from  England,  and  that  their  Liturgy, 
Doctrines  and  discipline  scarcely  differed  from  those  of  the 
English  Church.  And  as  only  the  spiritual  or  purely  Ecclesi- 
astical powers  of  Episcopacy  are  wanted  in  Connecticut,  I  saw 
no  impropriety  in  applying  to  the  Scotch  Bishops  for  Conse- 
cration. If  I  succeeded  I  was  to  exercise  the  Episcopal  Au- 
thority in  Connecticut  out  of  the  British  Dominions,  and  there- 
fore could  cause  no  disturbance  in  the  ecclesiastical  or  civil 
state  of  this  Country. 

The  reasons  why  this  step  should  be  taken  immediately  ap- 
peared also  to  me  to  be  very  strong.  Before  I  left  America 
a  disposition  to  run  into  irregular  practices  had  showed  itself. 
For  some  had  proposed  to  apply  to  the  Moravian,  some  to  the 
Swedish  Bishops  for  Ordination:  and  a  pamphlet  had  been 
published  at  Philadelphia  urging  the  appointment  of  a  number 
of  Presbyters  and  laymen  to  ordain  Ministers  for  the  Episcopal 
Church.  Necessity  was  pleaded  as  the  foundation  of  all  these 
schemes.  And  this  plea  could  be  effectually  silenced  only  by 
having  a  resident  Bishop  in  America. 

I  have  entered  into  no  political  engagements  in  Scotland 


268  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURV. 

nor  were  any  mentioned  to  mc ;  and  I  shall  return  to  Amer- 
ica, bound  indeed  to  hold  communion  with  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  Scotland,  because  I  believe  that,  as  I  do  the  Church 
of  England,  to  be  the  Church  of  Christ. 

It  is  the  first  wish  of  my  heart,  and  will  be  the  endeavor  of 
my  life,  to  maintain  this  unity  with  the  Church  of  England, 
agreeable  to  those  general  laws  of  Christ's  Church  which 
depend  not  on  any  human  power,  and  which  lay  the  strongest 
obligations  on  all  its  members  to  live  in  peace  and  unity  with 
each  other:  and  I  trust  no  obstacles  will  arise,  or  hinder  an 
event  so  desirable  and  so  consonant  to  the  principles  of  the 
Christian  Religion,  as  the  union  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
the  Episcopal  Church  of  America  would  be.  Such  a  union 
must  be  of  great  advantage  to  the  Church  in  America,  and 
may  also  be  so  at  some  future  period  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. The  sameness  of  Religion  will  have  an  influence  on  the 
political  conduct  of  both  countries,  and  in  that  view  may  be  an 
object  of  some  consideration  to  Great  Britain. 

How  far  the  venerable  Society  may  think  themselves  justi- 
fiable in  continuing  me  their  Missionary,  they  only  can  deter- 
mine. Should  they  do  so,  I  shall  esteem  it  a  favour.  Should 
they  do  otherwise,  I  can  have  no  right  to  complain.  What- 
ever may  be  their  resolution,  I  beg  them  to  believe  that  I  shall 
ever  retain  a  grateful  sense  of  their  favours  to  me,  during 
thirty  one  years  that  I  have  been  their  Missionary :  and  that  I 
shall  remember,  with  the  utmost  respect,  the  kind  attention 
which  they  have  so  long  paid  to  the  Church  in  that  country 
for  which  I  am  now  to  embark.  Very  happy  would  it  make 
me  could  I  be  assured  they  would  continue  that  attention  if 
not  in  the  same,  yet  in  some  degree,  if  not  longer,  yet  during 
the  lives  of  their  present  Missionaries,  whose  conduct  in  the 
late  commotions  has  been  irreproachable  and  has  procured 
esteem  to  themselves  and  respect  to  that  Church  to  which  they 
belong. 


LAST  DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  269 

The  fate  of  individuals  is,  however,  of  inferior  moment  when 
compared  with  that  of  the  whole  Church.  Whenever  the 
Society  shall  wholly  cease  to  interest  itself  in  the  concerns  of 
Religion  in  America  it  will  be  a  heavy  calamity  to  the  Church 
in  that  country.  Yet  this  is  to  be  expected :  and  calamity  will 
be  heavier  if  proper  steps  be  not  previously  taken  to  secure  to 
that  Church  various  property  of  lands  &c  in  the  different 
States  (now  indeed  of  small  value  but  gradually  increasing) 
to  which  the  Society  alone  has  a  legal  claim.  It  is  humbly  sub- 
mitted to  them  how  far  it  may  be  consistent  with  their  views, 
to  give  me  authority  to  assert,  and  secure  to  the  Church  there, 
the  lands  in  Vermont  and  elsewhere.  This  it  is  hoped  might 
now  be  easily  done :  but  a  few  years  may  render  their  recovery 
impracticable. 

The  Society  has  also  a  library  of  books  in  New  York,  which 
was  sent  thither  for  the  use  of  their  Missionaries  in  that 
neighborhood.  As  there  is  now  only  one  Missionary  in  that 
State,  and  several  in  Connecticut,  I  beg  leave  to  ask  their  per- 
mission to  have  it  removed  into  Connecticut,  where  it  will 
answer  the  most  valuable  purposes,  there  being  no  library  of 
consequence  in  that  State  to  which  the  Clergy  can  resort  on 
any  occasion. 

Whatever  the  Society  may  determine  with  regard  to  me 
I  hope  it  will  not  be  thought  an  impropriety  that  I  should  cor- 
respond with  them.  I  think  many  advantages  would  arise 
from  such  a  correspondence  both  to  the  Church  and  to  the 
Society.  Their  interests  are  indeed  the  same :  and  I  trust  the 
Society  will  do  me  the  justice  to  believe,  that  with  such  abiHty 
as  I  have,  and  such  influence  as  my  station  may  give  me,  I 
shall  steadily  endeavor  to  promote  the  interest  of  both. 

I  am,  with  the  greatest  respect  and  esteem,  Rev^  Sir  your 
and  the  Society's  most  ob^  and  very  humble  Serv^ 

S.  S." 


270  MEMOIR   OF    BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

The  next  entry  in  the  letter  book  is  as  follows: 

"  From  the  Rev^  Dr.  W"^  Morice  Secretary  to  the  Society, 
to  the  Rev^  Dr.  Scabnry,  New  London,  Connecticut  (so  di- 
rected) dated  Hatton  Garden  April  25^^'  1785."^ 
Rcv'^  Sir 

Your  letter  of  February  2y^^  was  read  to  the  Society  &c  at 
their  first  meeting  subsequent  to  my  receiving  it. 

I  am  directed  by  the  Society  to  express  their  approbation  of 
your  services  as  their  Missionary:  and  to  acquaint  you  that 
finding  they  cannot  consistently  with  their  Charter  employ 
any  Missionaries  except  in  the  Plantations,  Colonies  and  Fac- 
tories belonging  to  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  your  case  is 
of  course  comprehended  under  that  general  rule.  No  decided 
opinion  is  yet  formed  respecting  the  Lands  you  mention.  For 
the  rest  —  The  Society  without  doubt  will  always  readily  re- 
ceive such  information  as  may  contribute  to  promote  their  in- 
variable object,  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  in  foreign  parts. 
I  am  Rev'^  Sir 
Your  affectionate  brother  and  most  humble  Servant 

W^  MoRiCE  Secretary'' 

The  very  great  importance  of  the  interests  of  the  Church  in 
Connecticut  involved  in  his  appeal  to  the  Society,  would  natur- 
ally make  the  Bishop's  application  of  deep  concern  to  himself, 
apart  from  any  interests  of  his  own  in  the  matter :  and  would 
be  likely  to  demand  his  utmost  care  in  the  preparation  of  the  let- 
ter in  which  he  presented  the  application.  Certainly  such  care 
was  bestowed  upon  the  letter,  and  certainly  the  result  fully  jus- 
tified his  labour  in  the  composition  of  it.     There  remain  among 

7.  Attention  is  called  to  the  words  —  {so  directed)  —  inserted  by 
the  Bishop  in  this  introduction  of  the  letter;  as  showing  that  he  no- 
ticed the  breach  of  good  manners,  and  the  insulting  implication,  in- 
volved in  the  direction. 


LAST   DAYS    IN    ENGLAND.  271 

his  manuscripts  two  papers  which  he  drafted  in  preparation  for 
that  composition ;  so  that  the  letter  in  its  final  form  represents 
the  third  effort  which  he  had  made  to  shape  his  thoughts  on 
the  subject  before  him  in  the  most  effective  way  for  the  pur- 
pose which  he  had  in  view.  The  result  of  his  re-writing  was, 
as  it  would  be  apt  to  be,  that  his  thoughts  were  more  concisely- 
expressed;  and  that,  as  to  various  points,  conclusions  are  ex- 
pressed without  the  process  of  reasoning  by  which  he  had 
reached  them.  But  although  this  course  was  better  for  the 
purpose  of  arresting  and  retaining  the  attention  of  those  to 
whom  he  wrote,  it  had  the  disadvantage,  for  those  who  might 
afterwards  come  to  regard  his  letter  from  the  historical  point 
of  view,  of  not  presenting  his  full  thought  as  to  some  of  the 
matters  to  which  he  referred.  For  this  reason  I  venture  to 
think  that  certain  passages  of  those  drafts  have  a  value  to 
posterity  which  it  did  not  occur  to  him  to  attach  to  them,  and 
which  justifies  their  reproduction  here,  especially  as  they  have 
not  heretofore  been  printed. 

It  seems  to  have  been  constantly  present  to  the  mind  of  the 
Bishop  while  he  was  writing,  that  he  was  to  some  extent  — 
perhaps  he  hardly  realized  to  how  great  an  extent  —  under 
censure  for  the  course  which  he  had  pursued;  and  therefore 
he  seems  to  take  pains  to  put  his  conduct,  throughout  the 
whole  process  of  the  quest  for  the  Episcopate  in  such  a  light 
as  to  show  that  it  could  not  justly  be  condemned.  He  does 
this  sufficiently  in  the  letter  which  he  sent;  but  in  the  drafts 
he  goes  somewhat  more  at  length  into  the  consideration  of  the 
grounds  upon  which  he  had  acted,  and  thus  has  left  for  us 
some  account  of  his  own  principles  as  to  matters  in  which 
others  had  differed  from  him. 

It  will  perhaps  have  been  noticed  that  while  he  reported 
fully  in  his  letters  to  Connecticut  the  objections  which  had 
been  made  to  consecrating  him  in  England,  he  touched  very 
lightly  if  at  all  upon  the  answers  capable  of  being  made  to 


2.'J2  MEMOIR  OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

those  objections.  In  the  first  of  the  drafts  above  mentioned 
he  considers  two  of  the  objections  as  follows: 

"  I.  The  impropriety  of  sending  a  Bp.  into  Connecticut,  now 
a  sovereign,  independent  and  foreign  State,  without  the  desire 
or  formal  permission  of  that  State. 

But,  with  the  utmost  deference,  it  is  presumed,  that  the 
consecrating  a  Bp.  of  the  Christian  Church  at  large,  with  a 
view  to  his  going  to  reside  in  a  foreign  State,  where  there  is 
an  Episcopal  Church  but  no  Bp.  cannot,  in  strict  propriety,  be 
called  sending  a  Bp.  to  that  foreign  State.  At  most  it  is  but 
permitting  him  to  go  into  it.  The  act  is  his ;  the  risk  is  his ; 
the  impropriety,  if  any  there  be,  is  his,  and  not  theirs  who  con- 
secrate him.  And  if  it  must  be  deemed  a  sending  a  Bp.  he 
is  sent,  not  to  that  State,  but  to  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
State,  and  there  can  be  no  more  impropriety  in  a  Missionary 
Bp.  than  a  Missionary  Presbyter. 

The  other  objection  is  the  Impropriety  of  sending  a  Bp. 
where  there  is  no  established  diocese,  nor  any  provision  made 
for  his  decent  support.    .    .    . 

It  cannot  be  expected  that  a  State  the  rulers  of  which  are 
independents  will  ever  establish  a  regular  diocese,  or  make 
provision  for  the  support  of  a  Bp.  But  .  .  .  there  are  in 
Connecticut  80  Episcopal  Congregations,  and  13  resident 
Presbyters.  Before  the  late  commotions  began  there  were  21. 
Were  a  Bp.  settled  there,  these  would  naturally  become  his 
diocese,  and  their  number  would  be  great  enough  to  employ 
all  his  time  and  attention.  But  the  whole  benefit  of  permit- 
ting a  Bp.  to  go  to  Connecticut  would  not  centre  in  that  State. 
Other  parts  of  the  Continent  might  from  thence  receive  the 
great  blessing  of  the  Episcopal  order,  and  at  least  a  million  of 
souls  preserved  in  that  Church,  who  without  an  Episcopate  will 
be  left,  in  a  manner,  without  God  and  without  Christ  in  the 
world. 


LAST  DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  273 

In  the  infancy  of  Christianity  Bps.  went  and  resided  where 
there  were  no  established  dioceses,  nor  even  Christians  to  form 
a  single  congregation.  They  did  not  wait  till  the  ruling 
powers,  who  were  generally  averse  from  Christianity,  sent  for 
them,  but  they  went,  and  by  converting  the  people  established 
those  dioceses  over  which  they  afterward  presided,  or  else  they 
appointed  them  a  Bp.  and  proceeded  in  propagating  their  re- 
ligion.    .     .     . 

With  regard  to  the  support  of  a  Bp.  in  Connecticut,  it  is 
readily  acknowledged  that  not  much  is  to  be  expected  there 
at  present.  The  emoluments  arising  from  the  station  can  be 
no  object  with  any  one.  Nor  can  the  views  of  ambition  be 
gratified  by  the  appointment.  Trouble  and  labour,  perhaps  re- 
proach and  ill  treatment,  will  be  the  necessary  attendants. 
But  still  it  is  presumed  some  support  may  be  obtained  for  him, 
and  with  such  support  as  can  be  obtained  he  ought  to  be 
content." 

In  the  second  of  the  drafts,  the  Bishop  again  refers  to  cer- 
tain objections  made  to  his  consecration  in  England,  and  con- 
siders them,  showing  plainly  his  ground  and  principle,  with 
regard  to  them:  and  he  also  puts  on  record  a  bit  of  personal 
(and  diplomatic)  history,  of  which  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  this 
draft  furnishes  the  only  extant  evidence.  Several  difficulties, 
he  says,  presented  themselves  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury : 

"  I.  The  oaths  in  the  Consecration  office. 

2.  The  uncertainty  that  I  should  be  permitted,  by  the  civil 
authority,  to  reside  in  Connecticut,  and  exercise  Episcopal 
powers  there. 

3.  There  was  no  diocese  formed  in  that  Country,  nor  any 
stated  adequate  support  for  a  Bp. 

The  first  of  these  difficulties  I  had  foreseen,  and  hoped  that 
a  dispensation  from  the  King  would  have  been  sufficient  to  re- 
move it,  if  not,  that  a  short  act  of  Parliament  might  be  ob- 
tained; especially  as  the  object,  in  a  religious  view,  was  great. 


274  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEAnURY. 

and  the  necessity  urgent ;  and  in  a  pulitical  view  must  have  a 
good  effect  by  keeping  up  a  friendly  intercourse  with  that 
country  on  the  strong  foundation  of  a  common  reHgion,  in  its 
mode  as  well  as  substance. 

The  third  objection,  though  it  had  occurred  to  me,  never 
appeared  of  any  weight.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  dioceses 
should  be  formed  by  legal  authority  in  a  country  where  the 
prevaiHiig  mode  of  religion  is  presbyterian :  nor  that  any  stated 
revenue  should  be  appropriated,  for  the  Bp's  support,  by  a 
government  who  denied  the  necessity  of  Bps.  in  the  Church. 
But  that  the  whole  nimiber  of  Episcopalians  in  Connecticut 
would  of  course  be  his  diocese,  and  their  voluntary  contribu- 
tions must  be  his  support,  till  funds  for  that  purpose  could  be 
gradually  raised:  In  short,  that  the  Bishop  must  be  of  the 
primitive  kind,  such  as  were  in  the  Christian  Church  before  it 
became  the  religion  of  the  State  —  His  powers  merely  spiritual, 
and  his  support  such  as  the  people  could  give  him. 

The  second  objection  appeared  to  me  of  much  more  conse- 
quence, and  I  hoped  if  I  could  fairly  get  over  it,  the  rest  would 
sink  of  themselves.  I  had  no  doubt  that  I  should  be  permitted 
to  live  and  discharge  the  duties  of  the  Episcopal  Office  in 
Connecticut.  This  persuasion  arose  from  the  knowledge  I 
had  of  the  state  of  that  country,  the  temper  and  disposition  of 
the  people,  the  number  and  influence  of  the  members  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  it.  No  positive  assurances,  however,  had 
been  given  me  by  that  Government ;  and  it  appeared  to  me  un- 
reasonable to  expect  that  his  Grace  should  take  any  decided 
step  in  favour  of  the  measure  till  that  matter  was  ascertained. 
In  one  conversation  with  his  Grace,  about  September,  1783,  I 
was  led  to  believe  that,  if  I  could  get,  though  not  a  direct 
permission  from  the  government  of  Connecticut  to  come  thither 
in  the  character  of  Bp.,  yet  an  acquiescence  in  the  measure, 
all  other  difficulties  v^ould  probably  be  easily  surmounted.  I 
therefore  wrote  to  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  requesting  that 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  275 

an  application  should  be  made  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  State  of  Connecticut  to  obtain  such  permission,  or  at  least 
an  assurance  of  legal  protection.  It  was  so  long  before  I 
received  any  answer  to  my  letters,  that  I  really  despaired  of 
their  being  able  to  do  anything  in  that  way,  and  had  given 
up  the  matter  in  my  own  mind,  and  was  wishing  to  provide  for 
myself  in  some  other  way;  when,  in  April,  I  think,  I  received 
accounts  from  the  Clergy  to  this  purpose.  — That  the  State 
of  Connecticut  had,  in  January,  1784,  passed  an  Act  by  which 
the  Church  of  England  so  called  was  put  upon  an  equal  foot- 
ing of  privileges  and  legal  protection,  with  any  other  denomina- 
tion of  Christians,  and  enabled  to  manage  their  religious  af- 
fairs according  to  their  own  principles.     .     .     . 

Upon  the  receipt  of  these  accounts  I  determined  with  my- 
self to  exert  every  ability  to  carry  their  views  into  effect,  but 
at  the  same  time  not  to  abandon  the  idea  of  securing  some 
provision  for  myself  should  my  endeavours  prove  abortive. 

His  Grace  of  Cant,  seemed  to  think  the  letter  gave  some 
ground  on  which  to  proceed,  though  he,  at  the  same  time, 
observed  that  it  was  not  so  clear  and  explicit  as  he  could 
wish.  The  copy  of  the  Act  of  the  State  I  received  after  the 
letter;  and  upon  my  waiting  on  his  Grace  with  it,  he  kindly 
said  he  would  make  the  best  use  of  that  and  the  letter  that  he 
could,  and  hoped  he  should  be  able  to  succeed.  And  that  he 
would  lay  them  before  some  principal  persons  of  both  Houses 
of  Parliament,  and  if  possible  get  the  permission  to  consecrate 
Bps.  for  the  States  of  America  included  in  the  bill  relating  to 
the  ordination  of  Candidates  for  foreign  States.  Here  the 
matter  rested  till  the  end  of  the  last  session  of  Parliament, 
when  his  Grace  informed  me  that  he  had  not  succeeded  in  his 
views  —  That  the  Minister,  or  Ministry,  had  refused  to  let 
the  bill  pass  with  a  clause  for  the  consecration  of  Bps.  The 
reason,  if  I  rightly  understood  his  Grace,  was,  lest  they 
should  give  offense  to  the  American  States ;  and  that  it  would 


276  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEAUUKY. 

seem   very  odd  to  send  a   Dp.   thither   now  they   were  inde- 
pendent,   when    we   had    sent   none    while   they   were    British 
Colonies :  and  that  therefore  no  Dp.  could  be  sent  thither  with- 
out the  requisition  of  the  American  Coni^ress. 
Here  I  beg  leave  to  make  a  few  remarks. — 

1.  That  there  was  no  good  reason  to  apprehend  that  the 
State  of  Connecticut  would  take  my  consecration  amiss.  They 
had  passed  an  Act  by  which  the  Episcopal  Church  is  put  on 
an  equality  with  any  other  denomination  of  Christians  —  The 
Governor  and  the  leading  men  of  the  two  houses  of  Assembly 
had  declared  to  the  Committee  of  the  Connecticut  Clergy 
who  corresponded  with  me  —  Messrs.  Leaming,  Jarvis  &  Hub- 
bard, that  they  approved  both  of  the  plan  and  the  person  nom- 
inated ;  and  that  the  Bp.  would  be  equally  under  the  protection 
of  the  laws  of  the  State  with  any  other  Clergyman. 

2.  That  having  neglected  to  send  a  Bp.  to  America  while 
those  States  were  British  Colonies  was  no  good  reason  why  it 
should  be  neglected  now,  when  so  fair  a  prospect  of  doing  it 
easily  and  quietly  presented  itself  in  Connecticut. 

3.  That  the  American  Congress  is  incompetent  to  the  busi- 
ness of  making  such  a  requisition.  All  religious  affairs  being, 
by  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  reserved  to  the  particular 
States,  and  therefore  out  of  the  power  of  Congress. 

4.  To  expect  such  a  requisition  from  the  State  of  Connecti- 
cut is  also  unreasonable.  The  Government  is  presbyterian  and 
wants  no  Bps.  and  therefore  cannot  be  expected  to  make  a 
requisition  for  any. 

5.  The  phrase  of  sending  a  Bp.  to  America  is,  with  regard 
to  me,  an  improper  one.  I  came  from  America  to  ask  for 
Consecration,  and  had  I  obtained  it  and  returned,  there  would 
have  been  no  sending  in  the  case. 

6.  To  put  the  issue  of  my  business  upon  conditions  in 
their  own  nature  impossible  to  be  complied  with,  was  equal  to 
a  positive  denial ;  and  so  his  Grace  of  Cant,  seemed  to  under- 


LAST   DAYS   IN    ENGLAND.  ^J^J 

stand  the  determination  of  the  Ministry  at  the  time  he  ac- 
quainted me  with  it. 

In  this  situation  I  had  every  reason  to  suppose  that  all  pros- 
pects of  success  here  were  at  an  end ;  especially  when  I  con- 
sidered the  Act  passed  in  the  last  session  of  Parliament,  em- 
powering the  Bp.  of  London  to  ordain  priests  and  deacons  for 
foreign  States,  as  being  intended  to  preclude  the  necessity  of 
having  resident  Bps.  in  America  at  all;  though  it  left  all  the 
former  inconveniences  unremedied.  This  Act  had  certainly  a 
greater  tendency  to  alarm  the  Americans,  by  its  confining  the 
power  of  ordaining  their  Clergy  to  this  Country,  than  Conse- 
crating a  Bp.  for  them,  and  permitting  them  to  have  a  Bp.  or 
Bps.  of  their  own;  and  it  is  astonishing  to  me  that  it  never 
struck  the  Ministry  in  this  light,  especially  when  their  ap- 
prehensions of  giving  offense  to  the  Americans  were  so  very 
easily  excited. 

I  submit  it  to  every  candid  mind  whether  under  these  cir- 
cumstances I  was  not  justifiable  in  seeking  a  valid  Episcopacy 
wherever  it  was  to  be  had.  Legal  restrictions  there  were  none 
upon  me.  From  those  I  had  been  set  free  when  the  supreme 
authority  of  this  nation  declared  the  independency  of  America. 
I  was  therefore  bound  only  by  the  general  laws  of  Christ's 
Church  as  it  stands  independent  of  all  human  power;  and  I 
trust  I  have  broken  none  of  these.     .     .     . 

Let  me  here  mention  that  after  I  had  written  to  the  Scotch 
Bps.,  and  before  I  received  their  answer  a  Mission  was,  by 
Dr.  Morice,  at  the  direction  of  the  Abp  of  Cant,  offered  to 
me  in  New  Brunswick.  As  the  Dr.  pressed  for  an  early 
answer  that  he  might  inform  the  Society  at  their  next  meet- 
ing ;  I  could  not  give  up  that  prospect  till  I  knew  of  the  appli- 
cation in  Scotland,  I  therefore  consented;  telling  the  Dr.  at 
the  same  time  I  did  not  think  it  equal  to  what  I  had  a  right  to 
expect  from  Government,  and  that  I  must  do  better  for  my- 


278  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

self  if  I  could.  This  I  said  in  full  confidence  that  my  merit 
toward  this  Government  was  at  least  equal  to  that  of  any  man 
in  my  station :  and  from  Government  I  never  had  before,  nor 
have  I  since,  been  favoured  with  the  least  notice  or  attention. 
As  soon,  however,  as  I  received  my  information  from  Scotland, 
his  G.  of  Cant,  was  made  acquainted  with  it.  So  that  the  Mis- 
sion was  not  kept  unsupplied,  nor  could  any  inconvenience  on 
that  account,  arise  from  my  conduct.     .     .     ." 

So  —  with  all  due  acknowledgment  of  the  considerate  pru- 
dence of  the  Establishmentarians,  in  their  endeavour  safely  to 
bestow  the  man  whom  they  had  disappointed  in  a  remote 
corner  of  the  British  dominions  —  we  may  bid  farewell  to 
England,  and  pass  on  to  the  consideration  of  the  experiences  of 
the  subject  of  our  Memoir  on  his  return  to  his  western  home. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  FIELD  OF  WORK. 

1785-1786. 

FROM  March  19  to  June  20*'^  1785,  there  appears  no  evi- 
dence as  to  the  experience  of  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
necticut. During  this  period  his  voyage  to  Hahfax, 
his  sojourn  at  that  place,  and  the  voyage  from  thence  to  New 
England,  were  accomplished;  but  as  to  any  particulars  of  that 
period  I  have  no  information,  unless  I  may  consider  as  such,  a 
vague  tradition  of  a  shipwreck,  or  at  least  very  great  stress  of 
weather,  some  time  while  the  Bishop  was  at  sea ;  which  I  have 
heard  referred  to  as  accounting  for  the  stains  on  the  leaves  of 
some  of  his  books,  and  on  his  papers,  said  to  have  been  in- 
jured by  the  sea  water. 

Instead  of  proceeding  to  New  York,  as  it  will  have  been 
observed  that  he  had  anticipated  doing  when  he  purposed  to 
sail  in  the  Triumph,  he  landed  at  Newport,  Rhode  Island. 
This  event  was  recorded  in  the  Diary  of  John  Bours  Esqr.,  of 
that  place  as  follows : 

"  June  20,  1785.  Arrived  in  town,  via  Halifax,  from  Eng- 
land, Doctor  Samuel  Seabury,  lately  consecrated  in  Scotland, 
Bishop  of  the  State  of  Connecticut.  The  Sunday  following, 
did  the  duties  of  the  Church  (Trinity  Parish)  and  preached 
A.  M.  and  P.  M.  to  a  crowded  audience  from  Heb:  xii,  i^* 
and  2^  verses,  Monday  proceeded  to  New  London  by  water, 
where  he  is  to  reside."^ 

I.  Extract    from    contribution    to    "Gospel    Messenger"    of    Utica, 

279 


28o  MEMOIR    OF    BISIIOI*    SEABURY. 

It  is  thus  not  until  toward  the  end  of  June  1785,  that  Bishop 
Seabury  reports  himself  to  the  Revd.  Mr.  Jarvis  as  having  ar- 
rived at  Nev;^  London,  and  as  desirous  that  provision  should 
be  made  for  his  meeting  with  the  Clergy  of  his  Diocese  as  soon 
as  practicable. 

That  his  first  official  act  should  be  the  meeting  with  the 
Clergy  of  Connecticut  was  obviously  proper,  and  significant 
also  of  his  conception  of  the  work  to  which  he  had  been  partic- 
ularly called,  and  thus  of  the  field  within  which  his  jurisdiction 
was  established.  This  body  of  Clergy,  in  the  exercise  of  that 
jurisdiction  which  belonged  to  them  as  in  charge  of  congrega- 
tions constituting  the  Church  of  England  in  Connecticut,  and 
now  known  as  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  that  State,  had 
elected  him  to  seek  the  Episcopate,  and  had  pledged  their  ac- 
ceptance of  him  as  their  Bishop  when  he  should  be  conse- 
crated. Returning  in  that  capacity  he  advises  them  of  the  ful- 
filment of  their  commission,  and  affords  them  the  opportunity 
of  receiving  him  as  their  Bishop,  and  thus  of  formally  ratify- 
ing their  promise  of  canonical  obedience  previously  made. 
The  opportunity  was  embraced  without  unnecessary  delay; 
and  thus,  by  the  joint  act  of  Bishop  and  Clergy  accepted  with 
loyal  concurrence  by  the  people  of  their  communion  wifliout 
any  manner  of  gainsaying  or  objection,  was  completed  the 
Diocese  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  which  constituted  that 
Bishop's  proper  field  of  work,  or  jurisdiction.  That  he  had  no 
purpose  or  desire  to  extend  his  Episcopal  jurisdiction  beyond 
that  field,  is  manifest  from  the  course  which  he  pursued  in  the 
exercise  of  the  Episcopal  function,  as  well  as  from  his  declara- 
tions.^    At  the  same  time,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  needs 

N.  Y.,  December  21,  1849,  enclosed  in  note  of  Bishop  DeLancey,  of 
Western  New  York,  to  Revd  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury,  of  New  York, 
February  6th,   1850. 

2.  See,  for  example,  his  statement  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Smith  in 
reference   to    anticipated    action   of   the    Churches    in   the   Middle    and 


THE  FIELD   OF   WORK.  28l 

of  the  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  other  States  for 
the  services  of  a  Bishop  were  as  great  as  those  of  the  members 
of  the  Church  in  Connecticut;  that  there  was  at  the  time  of 
his  arrival  no  other  Bishop  in  the  Country,  and  that  no  other 
Bishop  was  in  the  Country  for  nearly  two  years  afterwards; 
and  that,  upon  principles  fundamental  in  the  doctrine  of 
Episcopacy,  he  had  as  Bishop  not  only  his  local  or  Diocesan 
jurisdiction,  but  also  that  universal  jurisdiction  which  was  the 
proper  attribute  of  his  Office,  and  by  virtue  of  which  he  had  a 
general  concern  for  the  sheep  of  Christ's  flock  wheresoever 
they  were  unshepherded  as  being  without  Episcopal  care  or 
oversight,  it  will  not  be  surprising  to  find  that  in  fact  Episco- 
pal functions  were  performed  by  him  for  others  than  those 
who  were  within  his  local  jurisdiction,  and  that  such  action 
was  sometimes  taken  by  him  outside  of  that  particular  juris- 
diction. These  instances  were,  however,  exceptional ;  and  were 
always  upon  the  request  of  those  who  needed  his  services,  and 
whose  request  to  him  could  involve  no  dereliction  of  duty  to 
any  other  Bishop,  since  there  was  in  fact  no  such  other  Bishop 
in  the  Country.  And  in  none  of  these  instances,  except  one 
which  will  be  afterwards  considered,  was  there  any  charge  of 
intrusion  made  against  him. 

There  was,  nevertheless,  a  certain  uneasiness  in  some  quar- 
ters, as  to  the  likelihood  of  his  claiming  jurisdiction  over  the 
Church  in  other  States;  and  as  the  Church  in  some  of  the 
other  States  had  by  this  time  begun  to  carry  into  effect  the 
plan  of  a  common  or  general  organization,  with  the  purpose  of 
procuring  for  the  several  States  concerned  Bishops  of  their 
own,  it  may  easily  be  understood  that  it  was  desired  that  the 
jurisdiction  of  those  Bishops  should  not  be  interfered  with  by 
one  who  was  at  that  time  not  within  that  organization.     And 

Southern  States:  "In  this  matter  I  am  not  interested.  My  ground 
is  taken,  and  I  wish  not  to  extend  my  authority  beyond  its  present 
limits." —  Beardsley's  Life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  p.  235. 


282  MEMOIR   OF   BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

this  feeling  was  also  enhanced  by  the  subservience  to  the  Eng- 
lish prejudice  against  the  Scottish  consecration  which  has  been 
already  considered,  and  to  which  it  will  be  necessary  again  to 
refer. 

The  point  to  be  noted  is  that  Bishop  Seabury  considered  the 
Church  in  the  State  of  Connecticut  as  constituting  his  proper 
and  peculiar  jurisdiction;  and  that  at  the  same  time,  in  the 
want  of  Bishops  in  any  other  part  of  the  country,  he  con- 
ceived it  to  be  within  the  right  of  his  Office,  and  to  be  a  duty 
of  simple  Christian  charity,  to  exercise  the  Episcopal  function 
for  the  benefit  of  those  whose  necessities  led  them  to  seek 
such  exercise  from  him. 

The  Clergy  of  Connecticut  met  in  Convention  at  Christ 
Church  in  Middletown,  August  2,  1785,  under  the  presidency 
of  Mr.  Leaming,  Mr.  Jarvis  being  Secretary.  Eleven  were 
in  attendance  as  members  of  the  Convention.  The  Rev.  Ben- 
jamin IMoore  of  New  York,  and  the  Revd.  Samuel  Parker  of 
Massachusetts,  had  honorary  seats  in  the  Convention.  On  the 
following  day  the  Bishop  was  formally  received,  greeted  and 
accepted  by  the  Clergy  as  their  Bishop.  The  first  ordina- 
tion was  held,  at  which  four  were  made  Deacons ;  and  the  first 
Episcopal  Charge  was  delivered.  At  the  conclusion  of  the 
Ordination  service,  the  Bishop  dissolved  the  Convention,  and 
directed  the  Clergy  to  meet  him  in  Convocation,  in  the  after- 
noon. The  Convention,  of  course,  was  a  voluntary  body :  the 
Convocation  was  so  named  as  being  a  body  convoked  by  au- 
thority. The  Convocation  which  thus  succeeded  into  the  place 
of  the  Convention,  continued  to  meet  from  time  to  time  until 
the  organization  of  the  Convention  of  Clergy  and  Lay  dele- 
gates in  1792,  after  which  time  its  function  seems  to  have  been 
advisory  to  the  Bishop. 

On  consultation  with  the  Convocation  in  various  sessions 
two  most  important  steps  were  taken  by  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
necticut in  the  line  of  the  then  pressing  need  of  revision  of  the 


THE   FIELD   OF    WORK.  283 

Book  of  Common  Prayer;  partly  in  order  to  the  adaptation  of 
the  prayers  for  Civil  Rulers  to  the  change  which  the  Revolu- 
tion had  made  necessary ;  and  partly  in  order  to  the  revision  of 
the  Communion  service. 

In  1786,  Bishop  Seabury  submitted  to  the  Convocation  his 
draft  of  a  service  for  Holy  Communion,  which,  with  their  con- 
currence he  afterwards  put  forth  as  "  recommended  to  the 
Episcopal  Congregations  in  Connecticut."  The  changes  in 
the  State  prayers  he  had  before,  on  consultation  with  the  Con- 
vocation, put  forth  as  enjoined  upon  the  Clergy  in  a  Pastoral 
Letter,  dated  August  12th,  1785.^ 

The  issuing  of  the  injunction  contained  in  this  Pastoral 
Letter  was  a  distinct  act  of  Episcopal  authority:  concluded 
upon,  indeed,  after  advice  with  the  Clergy,  as  in  the  best  ages 
of  the  Church  acts  of  Episcopal  authority  usually  were,  but  set 
forth  as  the  act  of  the  Bishop  as  such,  and  containing  a  claim 
upon  the  obedience  of  the  Clergy:  and  although  it  is  not  nec- 
essary here  to  reproduce  the  details  of  alteration  in  the  ser- 
vices, yet  it  is  worth  while  to  record  the  preamble  of  the 
letter,  both  for  its  dignified  and  temperate  tone,  and  also  as 
bearing  upon  the  point  of  the  field  of  work,  or  local  jurisdic- 
tion of  its  author.     It  is  as  follows : 

"  Samuel,  by  divine  permission.  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  State  of  Connecticut,  to  the  Clergy  of  the  said 
Church  Greeting. 

It  having  pleased  Almighty  God,  that  the  late  British  Colony 
of  Connecticut  should  become  a  free,  sovereign  and  indepen- 

3,  This  account  of  the  Convention  and  Convocation  is  taken  from 
the  very  valuable  compilation  of  the  Rev^.  Joseph  Hooper,  prefixed 
to  "  the  Records  of  Convocation  "  printed  by  the  Convention  of  Con- 
necticut, New  Haven,  1904.  A  fuller  account  is  given  by  Beardsley, 
with  copies  of  the  Address  of  the  Clergy,  and  the  Bishop's  Answer, 
and  of  his  two  valuable  Charges. —  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury, 
pp.  208-225;  263-282. 


284  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

dent  State,  as  it  now  is,  some  alterations  in  the  Liturgy  and 
offices  of  our  Church  are  necessary  to  be  made,  to  accommo- 
date them  to  the  civil  Constitution  of  the  Country  in  which  we 
live;  for  the  peace,  security  and  prosperity  of  which,  both  as 
good  subjects  and  faithful  Christians,  it  is  our  duty  constantly 
to  pray  —  We,  the  Bishop  aforesaid,  have  thought  fit,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  assistance  of  such  of  our  Clergy  as  we 
have  had  opportunity  of  consulting,  to  issue  this  Injunction, 
hereby  authorizing  and  requiring  You,  and  every  one  of  You, 
the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  of  the  Church  above  mentioned, 
in  the  celebration  of  Divine  Service,  to  make  the  following 
alterations  in  the  Liturgy  and  offices  of  our  Church  — "* 

The  American  mind  which,  (in  its  natural  condition  and  un- 
affected by  Anglophilic  or  other  hyper-social  aspirations)  is  no 
*'  respecter  of  persons,"  has  sometimes  amused  itself  at  the 
baronial  or  royal  sort  of  style  of  this  and  other  pronounce- 
ments of  Bishop  Seabury.  His  "  Samuel  by  Divine  permis- 
sion Bishop  &c,"  and  his  use  of  the  "  We  "  instead  of  I,  which 
used  to  be  characteristic  of  Sovereigns,  have  been  often  com- 
mented upon;  sometimes  humorously,  and  sometimes  with 
disparagement.  So  far  as  it  may  furnish  amusement  to  those 
whose  humor  is  fain  to  be  tickled  with  such  straws,  no  ex- 
ception need  be  taken  to  the  comment:  but  the  inference  that 
the  usage  was  the  mark  of  a  vain  affectation  of  exaltation  is 
unjust.  The  character  of  the  man  was  wholly  averse  from 
anything  of  the  kind.  He  knew  his  own  worth,  and  was 
fully  conscious  of  his  own  capacity  for  inspiring  in  others  the 
respect  which  he  had  for  himself ;  and  thus  possessed  a  natural 
personal  dignity  which  had  no  need  of  any  adventitious  props. 
At  the  same  time  he  was  permeated  with  the  faith  that  what- 
soever good  will  or  power  he  possessed,  he  had  it  not  by  any 
merit  of  his  own,  but  because  he  had  received  it  from  the 

4.  Dr.  Hart's  Reprint  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Communion  Office,  p.  29, 


THE   FIELD   OF    WORK.  285 

Giver  of  all  good ;  so  that  he  was  without  temptation  to  glory 
in  it  as  if  he  had  not  received  it.  And  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, that,  in  the  usage  commented  on,  he  simply  followed 
the  fashion  which  had  been  customary  not  only  in  the  English 
Church,  but  also  almost  throughout  the  Christian  world;  and 
further  that  he  believed  in  the  Office  which  he  held;  and  that 
it  was  part  of  the  duty  which  his  faith  taught  him,  to  magnify 
his  Office,  and  in  all  his  public  acts  to  present  it  to  men  so  that 
it  should  inspire  in  them  the  reverence  which  he  himself  felt 
for  it.^ 

At  all  events,  both  the  introduction  to  Bishop  Seabury's 
pastoral,  and  his  customary  signatures  accord  with  other  testi- 
monies as  to  the  extent  of  his  jurisdictional  claims.  In  a  col- 
lection of  fac-similes  of  Church  Documents  issued  by  the 
*'  Historical  Club  of  the  American  Church,"  1874-79,  appear 
the  following  specimens ;  "  Samuel  Connect.,"  "  S.  Bp.  Con- 
nect.," "  Samuel  Bp.  Connect,"  "  Samuel  Bp.  Ep^  Chch  Con- 
nect.," and  "  S.  Bp.  Connect.  &  Rho.  Isl."  The  last  cited  sig- 
nature being  after  he  had  been  declared  Bishop  of  Rhode 
Island  by  a  Convention  of  Churches  in  that  State  in  1790.*^ 

In  the  same  direction  tends  the  letter  written  by  Bishop 
Seabury  to  the  Governor  of  Connecticut,  the  copy  of  which  in 
the  Letter  Book  is  signed  with,  presumably,  an  abbreviated 
form.     This  letter  has  other  significances  also  which  make  it 

5.  It  is,  perhaps,  not  unworthy  of  consideration,  that  the  official  use 
of  the  plural  "  We,"  to  which  exception  is  sometimes  taken,  is  a  usage 
much  more  democratic  in  its  suggestions  than  that  of  the  singular  "  //•' 

The  Ruler  speaks  as  the  exponent  of  the  Community  over  which 
he  presides.  The  Sovereign  is  the  embodiment  of  the  people  of  his 
realm:  the  Bishop,  of  the  body  of  the  Church  in  his  Diocese.  So 
that  the  plural  of  the  personal  pronoun  has  a  much  better  political 
and  ethical  sanction  —  beside  that  of  venerable  precedent  —  than  could 
be  pleaded  for  the  recent  usage  of  Edward  VII,  in  addressing  Par- 
liament in  the  first  person,  in  regard  to  My  Army,  My  Soldiers,  etc. 

^.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  391. 


286  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

worth  printing,  since  it  shows  not  only  the  writer's  recognition 
of  duty  to  the  Civil  authority,  but  also  very  particularly  his 
acknowledged  allegiance  to  the  State,  notwithstanding  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled  were  not  to 
be  precluded  from  the  benefit  of  the  prayers  of  the  Church. 

''  His  excellency  Samuel  Huntington  Esquire  Governor  of 
the  State  of  Connecticut.     New  London  Oct.  14,  1786. 
Sir, 

The  Convocation  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  of  this  State  hav- 
ing in  their  late  meeting  at  Derby,  directed  the  inclosed  forms 
of  Prayer  for  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  as- 
sembled, to  be  inserted  in  the  Liturgy,  and  used  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  Divine  Service,  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  make  this 
communication  to  your  Excellency,  thinking  it  my  duty  to  lay 
all  our  transactions,  in  which  the  State  is  in  any  wise  con- 
cerned, before  the  Supreme  Magistrates.  We  feel  it  to  be 
our  duty,  and,  I  assure  your  Excellency,  it  is  our  willing  dis- 
position, to  pray  for,  and  seek  to  promote,  the  peace  and  hap- 
piness of  the  Country  in  which  we  live,  and  the  stability  and  ef- 
ficacy of  the  Civil  Government  under  which  God's  providence 
has  placed  us :  and  we  persuade  ourselves,  that  in  the  discharge 
of  this  duty,  we  have  not  derogated  from  the  freedom,  sover- 
eignty, or  independence  of  this  State.  Should  your  Excel- 
lency's sentiments  be  different,  I  shall  presume  to  hope  for  a 
communication  of  them,  that  due  regard  and  attention  may  be 
paid  to  them. 

Begging  the  best  blessings  of  Heaven  for  your  Excellency, 
both  in  your  private  and  public  capacity,  I  remain,  with  great 
regard  and  esteem,  your  Excellency's  most  obedient  and  very 
humble  servant,  S  —  Bp.  Connect." 

The  Bishop  was  favoured  with  the  following  answer  to  this 

communication  from  Governor  Huntington: 


THE   FIELD   OF   WORK.  287 

"  New  Haven  Novem.  4^''  1786 
Sir 

I  have  been  honoured  with  your  letter  of  the  11*^  ult^.  with 
the  forms  of  prayer  for  the  United  States  in  Congress  as- 
sembled, as  composed  by  your  late  Convocation  at  Derby,  and 
communicated  them  in  the  Council  Chamber  this  session  of 
Assembly,  we  found  nothing  exceptionable  in  the  forms,  I  es- 
teem them  well  adapted  to  the  occasion. 

I  may  say  with  much  pleasure  and  satisfaction,  I  am  happy 
to  see  the  day  when  the  spirit  of  bigotry  seems  almost  extin- 
guished, and  religion  is  no  longer  prostituted  as  an  engine  in 
State  policy  to  serve  political  parties  and  purposes. 
I  have  the  honour  to  be 
with  sentiments  of  esteem 
and  respect 

Your  obedient  humble  serv* 

Sam^K  Huntington 
Rev'^.  Bishop  Samuel  &c  "  * 

To  adduce  evidences  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  of 
these  m.emoirs  was  Connecticut,  may  seem  somewhat  like  an 
attempt  to  prove  the  obvious.  But  in  fact,  at  the  time,  there 
were  some  who  had  a  different  view  of  the  matter.  The  habit 
of  the  Church  mind  for  a  century  or  more  had  been  to  desire 
a  Bishop  for  the  Church  in  the  Colonies,  a  Bishop  to  reside  in 
America,  and  to  be  for  the  Church  in  this  Country  what  the 
Bishop  of  London  had  theretofore  been;  and  when  at  last  a 
Bishop  actually  was  in  the  Country,  it  was  not  unnatural  that 
many  should  feel  that  the  desire  of  the  Church  here  had  been 
realized,  and  that  those  who  needed  to  be  confirmed,  or  or- 
dained, or  otherwise  to  have  the  benefit  of  Episcopal  care, 
might  now  enjoy  what  they  had  so  long  desired.  It  was  felt 
too,  that  in  this  way  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church  throughout 

*Seabury  MSS. 


288  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  Country  was  secured.  For  although  intelligent  and  well 
informed  Churchmen  knew  that  the  ordinary  canonical  practice 
was  that  a  Bishop  should  be  ordained  by  three,  or,  as  the 
''  Apostolical  Canon  "  phrased  it,  "  by  two  or  three  Bishops," 
yet  they  also  understood  that  the  power  of  the  individual 
Bishop  essentially  involved  the  capacity  of  perpetuating  his 
own  order;  and  that  under  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
then  were,  that  course  might  be  pursued  if  it  should  prove  to 
be  necessary  to  adopt  it.  And  so  some  of  those  who  were  in 
sympathy  with  the  Connecticut  movement,  feeling  that  the 
situation  was  saved,  expanded  a  little  in  their  joy,  and  hailed 
the  new  Bishop  as  the  good  Bishop  of  America,  the  Bishop  of 
All  America,  and  with  such  like  phrases.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  those  who  did  not  sympathize  with  the  Connecticut 
movement,  but  were,  from  their  position,  or  judgment,  or  both, 
inclined  to  favour  the  movement  in  the  Middle  and  Southern 
States  for  the  completion  of  an  organization  first,  and  the  ac- 
quirement of  Bishops  afterwards,  were  extremely  apprehen- 
sive of  possible  claims  of  a  jurisdiction  over  them,  which  might 
in  some  way  interfere  with  the  development  of  their  plans. 
Dr.  Chandler  after  his  return  to  this  country,  writing  to 
Bishop  Seabury  from  Elizabethtown  July  28,  1785,  referring 
to  "  A  grand  Convention  "  soon  to  be  held  at  Philadelphia 
**  the  proceedings  of  which  will  decide  the  character  and  the 
fate  of  the  Church  in  the  middle  States,"  says,  "  I  find  that 
some  people  have  a  jealousy,  that  you  are  aiming  at  the  rule 
of  the  whole  Continent  in  ecclesiastical  matters;  and  they 
blame  you  for  hastening  to  settle  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church  in  Connecticut,  before  the  meeting  of  the  Continental 
Convention:"  and  the  evidences  of  this  feeling  were  not  al- 
together wanting  in  some  of  the  proceedings  afterwards  insti- 
tuted in  that  Convention,  which  will  later  come  under  our 
consideration.  It  seems  thus  to  be  of  some  importance  to 
show  clearly  the  ground  taken  by  Bishop  Seabury,  as  to  his  own 


THE   FIELD   OF   WORK.  289 


proper  and  exclusive  jurisdiction,  that  we  may  be  the  better 
able  to  estimate  at  their  true  worth  such  incidents  in  his  Epis- 
copal life  as  have  been,  or  are  perhaps  liable  to  be,  miscon- 
strued as  having  resulted  from  an  overweening  desire  on  his 
part  to  extend  and  intrude  his  own  influence  beyond  the  sphere 
for  which  he  was  justly  responsible. 

His  visits  to  other  neighborhoods,  wherein  he  had  many 
friends  both  Clerical  and  Lay,  led  of  course  to  frequent, 
though  occasional,  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  functions,  since  it 
was  as  Bishop  that  he  was  invited  to  officiate.  At  Boston,  at 
Portsmouth,  at  Newport,  and  at  Hempstead,  there  were  serv- 
ices held ;  which  were  apparently  regarded  as  matter  of  course, 
and  as  no  more  worthy  of  criticism  than  would  ordinarily  be 
the  act  of  one  Clergyman  in  preaching  upon  invitation  in  the 
parish  of  another.  Some  of  these  we  may  have  later  occasion 
to  notice.  But  to  none  of  them  was  exception  taken,  so  far 
as  I  am  aware,  except  to  that  of  a  service  in  St.  George's 
Church,  Hempstead,  in  which  Bishop  Seabury,  in  1785,  or- 
dained Mr.  John  Lowe  of  Virginia,  both  Deacon  and  Priest. 

Of  this  occurrence,  the  Rev^.  Dr.  Dix,  in  his  History  of 
Trinity  Church,  New  York,  speaks  as  follows : 

"  It  was  not  strange  that  in  the  uncertain  state  of  affairs  at 
that  time,  things  should  have  been  done  which  naturally  led  to 
irritation  of  feeling  and  breaches  of  the  peace  between  the 
brethren.  A  case  in  point  was  that  of  Bishop  Seabury's  cross- 
ing over  into  the  State  of  New  York  in  1785,  and  ordaining, 
in  a  place  where  he  had  no  canonical  right  to  officiate,  a  Can- 
didate for  Holy  Orders  from  the  State  of  Virginia.  The  Or- 
dination took  place  in  St.  George's  Church,  Hempstead,  L.  L" 
And,  after  quoting  an  account  of  the  service  given  in  *'  The 
New  York  Packet,"  November  10,  1785,  Dr.  Dix  continues, 
"  This  ordination  caused  no  little  annoyance  in  New  York. 
Later  we  find  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  vigorously  resenting 
a  lesser  act  of  intrusion  on  the  part  of  his  brother  of  New 


290  MEMOIR    OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

York.  When,  in  1795,  at  the  request  of  the  Clergy  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  after  consultation  with  those  of  New  York, 
Bishop  Provoost  after  much  hesitation  ordained  a  Minister 
for  a  Congregation  at  Narragansett,  which  had  placed  itself 
under  the  care  of  the  Church  in  Massachusetts,  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  promptly  protested  against  the  act,  claiming  that  the 
whole  of  the  territory  of  Rhode  Island  was  under  his  jurisdic- 
tion. On  receiving  Bishop  Seabury's  remonstrance,  Bishop 
Provoost  himself  proposed  the  adoption  of  Canon  VIII  of 
1795  (to  prevent  a  Congregation  in  any  Diocese  or  State  to 
unite  with  a  Church  in  any  other  Diocese  or  State)."'' 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  the  things  thus  referred  to,  the 
ordination  of  Bishop  Seabury  "  in  a  place  where  he  had  no 
canonical  right  to  officiate,"  it  is  to  be  observed  that  there 
were  no  canons  then  existing  in  this  Country  regulating  the 
right  of  Bishop  Seabury  to  officiate  in  any  particular  place. 
His  admitted  and  recognized  jurisdiction  was  the  Church  in 
Connecticut.  And  the  general  canonical  obligation  of  a 
Bishop  not  to  exercise  his  office  outside  of  his  own  jurisdic- 
tion was  manifestly  applicable  only  in  cases  where  such  act 
would  be  an  interference  with  the  right  of  some  other  Bishop. 
There  was,  however,  no  other  Bishop  claiming  jurisdiction 
over  the  place  in  which  Bishop  Seabury  then  officiated,  and  he 
certainly  disregarded  no  canonical  obligation  by  officiating  as 
a  Bishop  in  any  place  where  there  was  no  Bishop  having  or 
claiming  to  have  jurisdiction  over  the  Church  in  that  place. 

It  is  true  that  the  Church  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in 

7.  A  History  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  New 
York,  compiled  by  order  of  the  Corporation  and  edited  by  Morgan 
Dix,  S.  T.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  1901,  vol.  I,  pp.  106-7.  See  also  Appendix 
XV,  pp.  325-333,  of  the  same  volume,  in  which  a  fuller,  and  very 
satisfactory  account  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  the  text,  is  given 
by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Hooper. 


THE    FIELD   OF    WORK.  29I 

which  Hempstead  was,  had,  prior  to  the  act  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury,  formally  organized  itself  into  what  was  practically  and 
intentionally  a  Diocesan  jurisdiction;  and  proposed  to  have 
itself  completed,  when  possible,  by  a  Bishop  to  be  consecrated 
for  it.  So  that  it  might  be  claimed  that  no  such  act  as  that 
of  a  foreign  Bishop  officiating  within  its  limits,  ought  to  have 
taken  place  without  permission  of  its  constituted  authorities. 
Generally  speaking,  that  position  would  no  doubt  be  correct: 
but  when  it  is  considered  that  such  organization  had  taken 
place  only  a  few  months  before ;  that  it  was  the  act  of  a  Con- 
vention which  had  dispersed,  and  had  during  its  session  con- 
stituted no  Standing  Committee  or  other  body  to  exercise  its 
authority  in  the  interim  between  its  sessions ;  and  that  prob- 
ably information  in  regard  to  such  organization  was  not  as 
yet  become  general,  it  hardly  seems  fair  to  consider  the  act 
of  officiating  without  express  permission,  as  an  act  of  intru- 
sion. And  as  to  the  application  of  the  provision  of  the  draft 
constitution  of  the  General  Convention  of  1785,  that  ''  every 
Bishop  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his  office  to  his  proper 
jurisdiction;  unless  requested  to  ordain  or  confirm  by  any 
Church  destitute  of  a  Bishop,"  it  had  not  at  the  time  of  the 
act  referred  to  been  ratified  by  the  Convention  of  New  York, 
and  was  of  no  obligation  in  that  State,  and  certainly  of  none 
in  Connecticut  which  was  as  yet  unrepresented  in  General 
Convention.  The  act  of  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  in  this  case 
seems  to  have  been  fairly  within  his  Episcopal  discretion,  and 
cannot  be  condemned  without  judging  it  in  comparison  with 
standards  and  circumstances  which  did  not  exist  at  the  time, 
nor  for  a  good  while  afterwards.  And  it  is  worthy  of  note 
too  that  Dr.  Provoost,  who  objected  very  strenuously  to 
Bishop  Seabury's  being  in  New  York,  because  he  imagined 
he  was  set  on  mischief  and  was  trying  to  thwart  the  plan  of 
having  Bishops  consecrated  in  England,  nevertheless  does  not 


292  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

appear  to  have  had  any  particular  objection  to  allege  against 
the  act  of  Bishop  Scabury  from  a  Church  point  of  view.^ 

With  regard  to  the  vigorous  resentment  said  to  have 
actuated  Bishop  Seabury  vi^hen  some  ten  years  later  Bishop 
Provoost  ordained  a  clergyman  for  a  congregation  in  Narra- 
gansett,  Rhode  Island,  w^ithout  consultation  with  Bishop  Sea- 
bury,  under  whose  jurisdiction  the  Church  in  the  State  of 
Rhode  Island  had  previously  been  placed,  the  facts  appear  to 
be,  that  a  minority  of  the  parish  at  Narragansett  refused  to 
concur  in  the  act  of  the  Convention  of  the  Church  in  Rhode 
Island  placing  that  Church  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Bishop 
Seabury,  and  desired  to  associate  itself  with  the  Church  in 
Massachusetts;  and  that  Mr.  Walter  Gardiner,  at  the  instance 
of  that  minority,  had  applied  to  the  Standing  Committee  of 
Massachusetts  for  admission  as  a  Candidate  for  Holy  Orders ; 
and  that,  upon  the  request  of  that  Committee,  Bishop  Pro- 
voost, visiting  the  Parish  of  St.  Paul,  Narragansett  (now 
Wickford)  on  June  24,  1792,  made  Mr.  Gardiner  a  Deacon. 

It  being  well  known  that  the  Church  in  Rhode  Island  had 
by  its  convention  November  18,  1790,  placed  itself  under 
Bishop  Seabury's  jurisdiction,  the  only  plea  that  could  be 
made  in  defense  of  the  act  of  Bishop  Provoost  in  ordaining  a 
Narragansett  Church  member  for  a  congregation  in  Narra- 
gansett, on  the  request  of  Massachusetts  Clergymen,  would  be 
that  this  member  and  Congregation  had  the  right  to  connect 
themselves  with  another  Diocese  than  that  of  Rhode  Island. 
No  canon  having  prohibited  such  connection  the  intended  im- 
plication seems  to  be  that  there  was  no  objection  to  it.  It  is 
to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  principle  that  the  unit  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  was  the  Church  in  the 
State  (then  conterminous  with  the  Diocese)  was  settled  so 
early  as  1786,  when  the  General  Convention  on  a  question  put, 

8.  See  his  letter  to  Dr.  White,  cited  by  Beardsley,  pp.  248-9. 


THE    FIELD   OF    WORK.  293 

decided  that  it  had  no  authority  to  admit  as  members,  persons 
deriving  their  appointment  not  from  a  State  Convention  but 
from  a  particular  parish  or  parishes  only.^  That  principle 
being  settled,  jurisdiction  over  the  Church  in  a  State  would 
seem  necessarily  to  include  jurisdiction  over  congregations  of 
the  Church  within  that  State.  The  Canon  subsequently  en- 
acted, prohibiting  union  of  a  congregation  in  one  State,  with 
the  Convention  in  another  State,  no  doubt  applied  this  prin- 
ciple and  made  it  plainer ;  but  the  principle  and  the  duty  ought 
to  have  been  obvious  enough  to  prevent  the  action  of  Bishop 
Provoost.  Bishop  Seabury  appears  not  to  have  taken  any 
action  publicly  until  the  Convention  of  1793  in  Rhode  Island. 
Afterwards,  and  before  the  General  Convention  of  1795  he 
addressed  a  letter  to  Bishop  White,  "  respectfully  and  affec- 
tionately complaining  of  the  matter,"  which  letter  was  read  to 
Bishop  Provoost,  who  "  perceived  objections  to  such  conduct 
in  individual  Congregations,  and  would  much  approve  of  a 
Canon  to  prevent  it."  ^^  I  do  not  find  any  evidence  of  Bishop 
Seabury's  ''  vigorously  resenting  "  the  action  of  Bishop  Pro- 
voost other  than  this. 

Bishop  Seabury  made  the  following  entry  as  to  the  matter 
in  his  Journal  under  date  of  July  31,  1793,  recording  the  action 
of  the  Rhode  Island  Convention  at  Newport: 

"  The  case  of  Mr.  Walter  Gardiner,  of  Narragansett,  who 
that  he  might  have  some  pretence  for  endeavouring  to  seize  the 
legacy  left  by  John  Case  Esq^  for  a  support  of  a  Bishop  who 
should  have  the  superintendency  of  the  Narraganset  country, 
whenever  his  widow  who  had  her  life  in  his  farm  should  die, 
and  who  had  therefore  refused  to  join  with  the  other  Churches 
in  the  State,  and  with  the  majority  of  the  congregation  at 
Narragansett,  in  acknowledging  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  for 

9.  Bioren's  Journals  General  Convention,  p.  39. 

10.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  Ed.  1880,  p.  201,  cited  on  p.  332  of 
Dr.  Dix's  History  of  Trinity  Church,  volume  I. 


294  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  Bp.  of  Rhode  Island,  came  to  be  considered.  And  as  it 
appeared  that  Mr.  Gardiner  had  privately  obtained  a  recom- 
mendation to  the  Standing  Committee  of  Massachusetts,  and 
that  they  had,  without  any  personal  knowledge  of  Mr.  Gard- 
iner, recommended  him  to  Bp.  Provoost  of  New  York,  without 
any  concurrence  of  the  Congregation;  and  that  Bp.  Provoost 
had  on  this  recommendation  conferred  Deacons  orders  on 
Mr.  Gardiner  (who  it  seems  had  joined  himself  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts Convention)  the  Convention  declined  to  acknowledge 
Mr.  Gardiner  as  one  of  their  body,  unless  he  did  subscribe  the 
constitution  of  Rhode  Island,  and  acknowledge  the  superin- 
tendency  of  the  Bp.  of  Connecticut.  This  Mr.  Gardiner  would 
have  then  done,  had  he  not  been  prevented  by  Mr.  Thomas 
Wickham  of  NewPort.  The  Convention  therefore  allowed 
him  till  the  middle  of  November  to  consider  of  this  matter: 
and  determined  if  he  did  not  by  that  time  accede  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  Connecticut  &c:  they  would  hold  no  connection 
with  him. 

It  appeared  also  to  the  Convention  that  Mr.  Gardiner  had 
not  attended  at  the  Church  for  divine  service  for  a  month 
past,  as  no  congregation  would  attend  with  him." 

Apart  from  this  episode,  which  it  has  seemed  desirable  to 
consider  in  this  connection,  the  course  of  our  story  appears  to 
have  brought  us  to  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  return 
of  Bishop  Seabury  to  this  Country,  and  the  subsequent  action 
of  himself  and  his  Clergy,  with  the  loyal  concurrence  of  the 
laity  of  their  congregations,  resulted  in  the  establishment  of 
an  integral  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  —  perfectly 
organized  and  complete  in  itself  —  having,  by  valid  and  canon- 
ical transmission  of  the  Episcopate,  the  threefold  order  of  the 
Ministry  united  with  the  laity  in  communion  with  Christ 
through  the  faith  and  sacraments  of  His  institution.     To  speak 


THE   FIELD   OF   WORK.  295 

of  this  organization  as  a  Diocese  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut, 
is  to  speak  correctly,  but  not  adequately.  To  those  who  are 
accustomed  to  think  of  a  Diocese  as  merely  one  of  several  parts 
of  a  larger  division  of  the  Church  to  which  it  bears  a  sub- 
ordinate relation,  the  phrase  would  not  convey  the  whole  truth 
in  its  application  to  the  Church  in  Connecticut.  It  is  necessary 
to  observe  further  that  this  organization  in  Connecticut  con- 
stituted in  itself  an  entire  and  complete  Church  —  bound  in- 
deed by  the  analogy  of  the  faith  and  order  of  Christ's  Church 
as  a  whole ;  but,  so  far  as  other  individual  parts  of  the  Church 
were  concerned,  absolutely  independent,  and  free  from  all 
manner  of  subordination  to  the  rule  or  dictation  of  any  one  of 
them  or  of  any  combination  or  association  of  them. 

The  abandonment  on  the  part  of  the  English  Bishops  of  all 
claim  to  the  jurisdiction  which  had  been  the  common  bond  of 
union  of  the  Churches  existing  in  the  several  Colonies,  left 
the  Church  in  each  State  after  the  Revolution  free  to  pursue 
one  of  two  courses  open  to  it.  It  might  seek  to  complete  and 
perfect  itself  by  procuring  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop,  and 
by  settling  its  own  faith  and  worship  and  discipline  in  accord- 
ance with  the  general  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Christ; 
or  it  might  associate  itself  with  the  Church  in  other  States  in 
a  common  organization,  and  seek  the  procurement  of  its  com- 
pletion by  Bishops  afterward.  In  Connecticut  the  first  of  these 
courses  was  pursued.  In  Pennsylvania  and  other  States  the 
second  course  was  preferred.  Each  part  of  the  Church  was 
wholly  within  its  right  in  the  course  adopted.  But  it  is  mani- 
fest that  neither  part  had  any  right  or  claim  to  jurisdiction 
over  the  other;  and  that  the  basis  of  whatever  joint  or  com- 
mon association  there  might  be,  was  simply  the  consent  of  the 
integral  parts  associating  themselves. 

The  relation  which  the  completely  organized  Church  in  Con- 
necticut might  come  to  hold  to  the  Churches  in  other  States 


296  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

then  in  process  of  organization,  was  necessarily  to  be  based 
upon  the  common  consent  of  all ;  and  the  several  steps  toward 
the  establishment  of  such  consent,  and  the  difficultres  attendant 
upon  its  completion,  come  now  to  be  considered. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  UNION. 

1784-1789- 

THE  Ecclesiastical  Union  here  intended  is  that  associa- 
tion of  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  States  of  the  Civil 
Union  of  this  Country,  on  the  basis  of  a  common 
Constitution  voluntarily  adopted  for  purposes  of  common  gov- 
ernment, which  was  established  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century;  and  which  has  since  continued  to  exist  under  the 
legislative  authority  of  the  representative  body  known  as  the 
General  Convention,  composed  of  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laity, 
and  deriving  its  powers  from  that  Constitution  which  is  the 
basis  of  the  association. 

Our  present  concern  with  this  Union  relates  chiefly  to  the 
connection  with  it  of  the  subject  of  these  memoirs:  and  the 
effort  here  made  will  be  to  show  in  what  the  Union  consisted, 
and  to  point  out  some  of  the  difficulties  which  had  to  be  over- 
come in  the  completion  of  it. 

From  the  first  Journals  of  General  Convention,  and  from  the 
Memoirs  of  the  venerable  Bishop  White,  to  whom  belongs  the 
honor  of  having  been  the  father  of  the  plan  on  which  the 
Churches  in  the  different  States  were  associated  in  this  Union, 
the  following  facts  appear. 

In  May,  1784,  a  meeting  of  some  of  the  Clergy  of  New 
York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  was  held  at  New  Bruns- 
wick, New  Jersey,  for  the  revival  of  a  charitable  Corporation 

297 


298  MEMOIR    OF    r>ISIIOP    SEABURY. 

chartered  in  the  Colonial  period,*  at  which  meeting  were  also 
present  certain  of  the  lay  members  of  the  Church.  Opportu- 
nity was  taken  to  consider  the  condition  and  prospects  of  the 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  to  submit  certain  measures, 
recently  adopted  in  Pennsylvania,  tending  to  the  organization 
of  the  Church  throughout  the  Civil  Union.  The  result  was  a 
more  general  meeting  in  New  York  in  the  following  October ; 
at  which  there  appeared  deputies  from  the  three  States  above 
named,  and  others.  The  greater  number  of  these  deputies 
were  vested  with  no  powers  to  bind  their  constituents,  the 
Churches  in  the  States  from  which  they  came;  and  their  only 
act  was  the  recommendation  to  the  Churches  in  the  various 
States  to  unite  under  a  few  articles  considered  to  be  funda- 
mental.^ At  Philadelphia  in  September,  1785,  a  Convention 
assembled  at  which  were  present  deputies,  Clerical  and  Lay, 
from  the  States  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Del- 
aware, Maryland,  Virginia  and  South  Carolina. 

The  Convention  thus  assembled  adopted  what  may  be  called 
a  draft  of  a  Constitution,  as  the  basis  of  the  association  of  the 
Churches  represented,  and  such  others  as  might  be  disposed 
to  join  them ;  and  the  members  of  that  Convention,  being  still 
possessed  of  no  authority  to  bind  their  constituents,  provided 
in  their  proposed  Constitution,  that  when  that  Instrument 
should  be  ratified  by  the  Church  in  the  different  States,  it 
should  be  fundamental,  and  unalterable  by  the  Convention  of 
the  Church  in  any  State.^ 

In  1786,  representatives  from  the  seven  States  above  named 
adopted  another  draft  or  proposed  Constitution,  a  modification 

1.  The  Corporation  for  the  Relief  of  Widows  and  Children  of  Clergy- 
men, still  perpetuated  in  the  three  States  of  New  York,  New  Jersey 
and  Pennsylvania. 

2.  Bishop  White's  Statement  prefixed  to  Bioren's  Reprint  of  General 
Convention  Journals. 

3.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  8. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  299 

in  some  respects  of  that  of  1785,  but  in  the  main  to  the  same 
effect,  and  with  the  same  want  of  authority ;  the  deputies  being 
still  without  power  to  bind  their  constituents.  But  in  the  year 
1786,  a  resolution  was  adopted  which  led  to  putting  the  author- 
ity of  the  Convention  in  future  upon  a  different  basis :  it  being 
by  this  resolution  "  recommended  to  the  Conventions  of  this 
Church  in  the  several  States  represented  in  this  Convention, 
that  they  authorise  and  empower  their  deputies  to  the  next 
General  Convention,  after  we  shall  have  obtained  a  Bishop  or 
Bishops  in  our  Church,  to  confirm  and  ratify  a  General  Con- 
stitution, respecting  both  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ice."  ^  In  accordance  with  this  action  the  proposed  Constitu- 
tion of  1786  provided  that  that  Instrument  "  when  ratified  by 
the  Church  in  a  majority  of  the  States  assembled  in  General 
Convention,  with  sufficient  power  for  the  purpose  of  such  rati- 
fication, shall  be  unalterable  by  the  Convention  of  any  particu- 
lar State  which  hath  been  represented  at  the  time  of  such  rati- 
fication." ^ 

In  1787,  Dr.  White  was  consecrated  Bishop  for  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Dr.  Provoost  for  New  York,  and  at  the  General 
Convention,  following  these  Consecrations,  in  the  summer  of 
1789,  the  members  being  called  upon  to  declare  their  powers 
relative  to  the  resolution  of  1786,  recommending  their  being 
appointed  by  their  State  Conventions  with  the  full  power  "  to 
confirm  and  ratify  a  General  Constitution  respecting  both  the 
doctrine  and  discipline,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  gave  information,  that  they  came 
fully  authorized  to  ratify  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  &c.  for 
the  use  of  the  Church."  ^ 

4.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  26.  Cf.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  pp.  80,  81. 
(Ed.  1836.) 

5.  Ibid.,  p.  26. 

6.  Ibid.,  p.  48. 


300  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

The  Constitution  adopted  in  August,  1789,  was  thus  author- 
itative, and  of  obligation  upon  the  Churches  in  the  States  rep- 
resented in  the  Convention  then  sitting;  and,  having  reached 
this  point,  the  Convention  adjourned  to  another  session  in  the 
autumn  of  the  same  year,  to  which  were  invited,  and  at  which 
attended,  representatives  from  the  Church  in  Connecticut  and 
other  Eastern  States;  and  in  October  of  that  year  the  Con- 
stitution which  had  been  adopted  in  the  previous  August  was, 
after  certain  amendments,  re-adopted,  and  agreed  to  also  by 
those  representatives.  From  thenceforth,  there  was  estab- 
lished the  Ecclesiastical  Union,  under  that  Constitution,  of  all 
the  Churches  of  the  several  States  which  had  been  represented 
in  that  Convention.  In  Connecticut  there  appears  to  have  been 
a  further  formal  ratification  of  the  acts  of  their  deputies;  but 
the  authority  of  the  Constitution  as  the  basis  of  the  Ecclesi- 
astical Union  dates  from  the  second  session  of  General  Con- 
vention, in  October,  1789;  and  although  that  Union  did  not 
then  extend  over  all  the  States  of  the  Civil  Union,  all  were 
ultimately  included  within  it. 

The  course  pursued  by  the  Convention  from  the  beginning 
of  its  sessions  was,  in  several  respects,  such  as  to  cause  serious 
distrust  among  the  Connecticut  Churchmen  and  those  who  were 
like  minded  with  them.  The  attitude  of  the  Convention  to- 
ward the  Episcopate,  which  indeed  it  was  solicitous  to  procure 
for  each  of  the  States  represented,  but  which  it  seemed  dis- 
posed to  put  in  a  subordinate  position,  and  make  rather  inci- 
dental than  essential  to  the  system;  the  somewhat  hasty  and 
crude  revision  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  the  association 
of  laymen  on  equal  terms  with  the  Clergy,  not  only  in  legisla- 
tive but  even  in  judicial  functions;  the  reduction  of  Bishops 
to  an  ex  officio  membership  in  a  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  without  even  provision  (at  first)  for  having  a  Bishop 
preside  when  one  should  be  present ;  and  the  making  of  every 
Clergyman, —  Bishop,  Presbyter,  or  Deacon  —  amenable  to  the 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  3OI 

Convention  in  his  State,  so  far  as  related  to  suspension  or  re- 
moval from  office,  were  measures  for  which  there  was  no  prece- 
dent in  the  previous  practice  of  the  Church,  and  no  justification 
in  the  principles  on  which  that  practice  had  been  founded. 

There  was  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop,  or  the 
Diocese,  of  Connecticut,  to  hold  aloof  from  the  Union,  or  to 
make  any  opposition  to  it  —  quite  the  contrary.  But  in  all  the 
Eastern  States  there  were  grave  apprehensions  of  unchurchly 
tendencies  in  the  Middle  and  Southern  States.  Bishop  White 
thought  that  these  were  not  well  founded,  but  they  existed ; 
and  they  had  as  strong  an  influence  in  one  direction,  as  the 
objections  to  the  independent  action  of  Connecticut,  and  the 
uneasiness  about  the  anticipated  extension  of  Bishop  Seabury's 
universal  American  jurisdiction  had  in  the  other. 

In  addition  to  the  opposition  of  feeling  thus  indicated,  it  is 
necessary  also  to  observe  that  the  attitude  of  the  Convention 
toward  Bishop  Seabury  himself,  was  not  such  as  to  encourage 
his  confidence  in  the  desire  of  the  Churches  represented  in  that 
body  to  have  any  connection  or  association  with  him,  or  the 
Church  under  his  jurisdiction.  Instigated  at  first  by  Dr.  Pro- 
voost  of  New  York,  and  afterward  promoted  by  Dr.  Robert 
Smith  of  South  Carolina,  an  effort  was  made  to  set  a  stigma 
upon  Bishop  Seabury's  consecration,  by  impugning  the  vaHdity 
of  ordinations  performed  by  him.  And  although  the  Conven- 
tion could  not  be  influenced  to  this  extent  by  those  deputies, 
yet  it  is  hardly  surprising  that  the  action  which  that  body  did 
take,  should  be  viewed  by  Bishop  Seabury  in  connection  with 
those  attacks  upon  him,  and  be  considered  accordingly  as  far 
from  reassuring. 

It  seems  worth  while  to  record  here  the  several  resolutions 
which  were  formulated  in  order  to  guard  against  what  was 
supposed  to  be  the  dangerous  tendency  of  Bishop  Seabury's 
existence  at  that  period. 

In  the  New  York  Convention,  May  i6,  1786,  after  the  ap- 


302  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

pointmcnt  of  Clerical  and  Lay  deputies  to  the  next  General 
Convention,  it  was  **  Resolved,  That  the  persons  appointed  to 
represent  this  Church  be  instructed  not  to  consent  to  any  act 
that  may  imply  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  ordina- 
tions." '^ 

In  the  General  Convention,  June,  1786,  it  was  moved  by 
the  Rev.  Robert  Smith  of  South  Carolina  *'  That  the  Clergy 
present  produce  their  letters  of  Orders,  or  declare  by  whom 
they  were  ordained."  ^ 

This  resolution  having  been  lost,  it  was  moved  by  Dr.  Pro- 
voost  and  seconded  by  Dr.  Smith,  "  That  the  Convention  will 
resolve  to  do  no  act  that  shall  imply  the  validity  of  ordina- 
tions made  by  Dr.  Seabury."  This  motion  was  also  lost,  New 
York  (as  instructed,)  New  Jersey  and  South  Carolina  voting 
for  it;  and  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland  and  Virginia 
voting  against  it.^ 

On  a  motion  made  by  Dr.  White,  and  seconded  by  Dr. 
Smith,  it  was  "  Resolved  unanimously  that  it  be  recommended 
to  this  Church  in  the  States  here  represented,  not  to  receive  to 
the  pastoral  charge  within  their  respective  limits,  clergymen 
professing  canonical  subjection  to  any  Bishop,  in  any  State  or 
Country,  other  than  those  Bishops  who  may  be  duly  settled  in 
the  States  represented  in  this  Convention."  ^^ 

This  Resolution  fairly  covered  the  only  ground  on  which 
reasonable  objection  could  be  made  to  the  admission  of  persons 
ordained  by  Bishop  Seabury;  viz.  that  those  who  were  amen- 

7,  New  York  Journals,  I,  p.  9. 

8.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  19. 

9.  Ibid.,  p.  21.  The  Journal  shows  that  before  this  vote  was  taken, 
Dr.  William  Smith  moved  the  previous  question,  and  was  seconded  by 
Dr.  White.  The  object  was  to  shut  off  all  disparagement  of  the  right 
of  Bishop  Seabury  to  ordain.  The  Convention,  however,  refused  to 
pass  this  motion,  thus  insisting  upon  voting  on  Provoost's  resolution, 
which  nevertheless  they  also  refused  to  pass. 

10,  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  21. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL   UNION.  303 

able  to  the  Convention,  ought  not  to  have  a  divided  allegiance, 
as  being  also  amenable  to  a  Bishop  not  connected  with  the 
Convention.  If  the  Convention  anticipated  such  danger  it  had 
a  right  to  guard  against  it:  and  if  this  resolution  had  stood 
alone,  although  it  showed  but  little  confidence  in  Bishop  Sea- 
bury,  and  no  great  desire  for  union  with  him,  no  exception 
needed  to  be  taken  to  it.  But  such  moderate  measure  could 
not  satisfy  those  who  either  had,  or  affected  to  have,  doubts 
of  the  Scottish  succession;  or  who  were  anxious  to  acquire 
merit  in  the  eyes  of  the  English  Bishops  by  refusing  to 
fraternize  with  a  Bishop  who  had  scandalized  their  Lordships 
by  his  Scottish  consecration.  This  latter  significance  seems  to 
be  involved  in  the  resolution  next  adopted  unanimously  on  the 
motion  of  Dr.  Robert  Smith ;  ''  Resolved,  That  it  be  recom- 
mended to  the  Conventions  of  the  Church  represented  in  this 
General  Convention,  not  to  admit  any  person  as  a  minister 
within  their  respective  limits,  who  shall  receive  ordination 
from  any  Bishop  residing  in  America,  during  the  application 
now  pending  to  the  English  Bishops  for  Episcopal  Consecra- 
tion." ^^ 

Notwithstanding  these  covert,  but  obvious,  attacks,  upon 
him ;  and  notwithstanding  the  anxieties  which  the  reports  of 
the  action  of  the  Convention  aroused  in  him.  Bishop  Seabury 
was  desirous  that  nothing  should  be  wanting  on  his  part,  which 
he  could  properly  do,  for  the  promotion  of  union  between  the 

II.  Bioren's  Journals,  pp.  21,  22,  No  such  ulterior  motive  is  at- 
tributable to  Dr.  White,  who  did  not  entertain  doubts  of  the  validity 
of  the  Scotch  Succession,  and  who  was  above  any  such  indirect  modes 
of  conciliation.  "  It  was  Dr.  White,"  writes  Dr.  William  Smith  to 
Bishop  Seabury,  "  who  seconded,  on  a  former  occasion,  my  motion 
for  not  suffering  any  question  in  Convention,  which  might  imply  even 
a  doubt  of  the  validity  of  your  consecration,  and  that  at  a  time  when 
admitting  a  doubt  of  that  kind  was  considered  by  some  as  a  good 
means  of  forwarding  his  own  and  Dr.  Provoost's  consecration." 
(Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  364.) 


304  MEMOIR   OF    BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

Churches  in  all  the  States.  He  proved  this  earnest  desire  by 
his  courteous  overtures  to  the  Bishops  of  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York  upon  their  return  from  England  in  that  capacity ; 
by  his  kindly  criticism  of  the  measures  of  the  Convention  from 
which  he  apprehended  evil  results ;  ^^  and  by  his  willingness 
at  last  to  accede,  for  the  sake  of  the  unity  and  peace  of  the 
Church,  to  a  system  which,  as  being  an  entirely  new  departure, 
he  was  prone  to  distrust ;  but  which,  rather  than  risk  the  dan- 
gers of  having  different  organizations  of  the  same  Communion 
in  the  United  States,  he  thought  it  most  wise  to  support  — 
provided  certain  essentials  could  be  preserved  —  in  the  hope 
of  the  ultimate  settlement  of  the  system  upon  a  more  trust- 
worthy basis. 

So  great,  however,  was  the  anxiety  entertained  in  Connecti- 
cut in  regard  to  the  tendencies  which  they  apprehended,  that 
the  Bishop  and  Clergy  of  that  State  thought  it  wise  to  try  to 
secure  another  Bishop  to  act  as  Coadjutor  to  Bishop  Seabury, 
and  to  succeed  him  in  case  of  his  decease ;  and  the  Convocation 
in  the  latter  part  of  February,  1787,  elected  the  Rev^.  Mr. 
Jarvis  to  go  to  Scotland  to  receive  consecration  from  the  Bish- 
ops of  that  Country.  Writing  on  March  2^.  of  that  year  to 
Bishop  Skinner,  and  speaking  of  the  recent  meeting  of  his 
Clergy,  Bishop  Seabury  says :  "  They  are  much  alarmed  at 
the  steps  taken  by  the  Clergy  and  Laity  to  the  south  of  us, 
and  are  very  apprehensive  that,  should  it  please  God  to  take 
me  out  of  the  world,  the  same  spirit  of  innovation  in  the  gov- 
ernment and  Liturg}^  of  the  Church  would  be  apt  to  rise  in 
this  State,  which  has  done  so  much  mischief  in  our  neighbor- 
hood. .  .  .  and  should  this  See  become  vacant,  the  Clergy 
may  find  themselves  under  the  fatal  necessity  of  falling  under 

12.  See  for  instance  his  manly,  clear  and  cogent  letter  to  Dr.  Wil- 
liam Smith  of  August  15,  1785,  printed  in  Bishop  White's  Memoirs, 
pp.  286-292. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL   UNION.  3^5 

the  Southern  establishment,  which  they  consider  as  a  depart- 
ure from  ApostoHcal  institution. 

To  prevent  all  danger  of  this,  they  are  anxious  to  have  a 
Bishop  coadjutor  to  me,  and  will  send  a  gentleman  to  Scot- 
land for  consecration  as  soon  as  they  know  that  the  measure 
meets  with  the  full  approbation  of  my  good  and  highly  re- 
spected brethren  in  Scotland.  It  has  not  only  my  approbation, 
but  my  most  anxious  wishes  are,  that  it  may  soon  be  carried 
into  execution." 

Communication  in  those  days  was  slow,  and  the  custom  of 
correspondents  adapted  itself  to  that  deliberation.  Not  until 
June  20,  1787,  was  Bishop  Skinner's  answer  to  this  letter 
dated;  and  of  course  its  arrival  here  was  much  later.  In  the 
meantime  Drs.  White  and  Provoost  had  been  consecrated  in 
England,  and  had  returned  to  this  Country.  Aware  of  their 
consecration,  Bishop  Skinner,  in  his  reply  to  Bishop  Seabury, 
says,  "  We  can  hardly  imagine  that  the  Bishops  of  Philadel- 
phia and  New  York  will  refuse  their  brotherly  assistance  in 
the  measure  which  you  propose  to  us,  or  yet  take  upon  them  to 
impose  their  own  Liturgy  as  the  sole  condition  of  compliance. 
Should  this  be  the  case,  and  these  new  Bishops  either  refuse 
to  hold  communion  with  you,  or  grant  it  only  on  terms  with 
which  you  cannot  in  conscience  comply,  there  would  then  be 
no  room  for  us  to  hesitate.  But  fain  would  we  hope  better 
things  of  these  your  American  brethren,  and  that  there  will  be 
no  occasion  for  two  separate  communions  among  the  Episco- 
palians in  the  United  States.^^ 

The  *'  brotherly  assistance  "  of  the  Bishops  mentioned  was 
not  sought  for  the  consecration  of  the  Coadjutor  for  Bishop 
Seabury.  Later  it  was  sought  by  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire  clergy  for  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  to  be 
Bishop  for  the  Church  in  those   States;  and  was  decHned. 

13.  Cf.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  293-298. 


306  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

Reference  will  hereafter  be  made  to  this;  but,  in  order  of 
time,  there  are  other  matters  to  be  first  noted.  It  is  to  be 
observed,  however,  in  passing  that  the  "  brotherly  assistance  " 
was  sought  from  a  different  quarter,  through  the  request  made 
by  the  Convention  in  Virginia,  in  May,  1787,  that  Bishops 
White  and  Provoost  would  consecrate  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith 
Bishop  for  the  Church  in  that  State.  The  request  was,  con- 
sistently, denied  on  the  ground  that  it  behoved  those  Bishops 
not  to  act  without  first  obtaining  the  three  Bishops  from  Eng- 
land, and  partly  on  the  further  ground  that  a  consecration  by 
only  two  Bishops  would  be  a  precedent  for  irregularity  in  fu- 
ture ;  ^^  though  apparently  it  was  not  convenient  to  remember 
that  there  was  another  Bishop  within  easy  reach  if  regularity 
had  been  the  thing  desired. 

In  a  letter  to  his  friend  William  Stevens  Esq^  of  London, 
on  the  9th  of  May,  1787,  Bishop  Seabury  writes :  "  It  is  so 
long  since  I  heard  from  any  of  my  friends  in  London,  that  I 
cannot  help  feeling  some  uneasiness  on  that  account.  I  did 
hope  that  I  should  have  received  some  intelligence  respecting 
the  two  American  Bishops,  and  particularly,  whether  they  were 
laid  under  any  restrictions  ?  And  if  so,  what  those  restrictions 
were?  Those  Gentlemen  are  returned,  but  I  do  not  find  their 
arrival  has  made  much  noise  in  this  Country.  I  have  written 
to  them  both,  proposing  an  interview  with  them,  and  an  Union 
of  the  Church  of  England  through  all  the  States,  on  the  ground 
of  the  present  Prayer  Book,  only  accommodating  it  to  the  Civil 
Constitution  of  this  Country;  and  the  government  of  the 
Church  to  continue  unaltered  as  it  now  is,  with  a  body  of  can- 
ons to  give  energy  to  it,  and  direct  its  operation.  I  know  not 
what  efifect  this  overture  may  have.  But  my  fears  are  greater 
than  my  hopes.  Everything  I  can  fairly  do  to  procure  Union 
and  uniformity,  shall  certainly  be  done."  ^^ 

14.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  I44n. 

15.  Ms.  Letter  Book. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL   UNION.  307 

Bishop  White  and  Bishop  Provoost  landed  at  New  York,  in 
the  afternoon  of  Easter  Day,  April  7,  1787.^*^  The  letters  re- 
spectively addressed  to  them  by  Bishop  Seabury,  are  said  by 
Dr.  Beardsley  to  "  bear  the  same  date  and  breathe  the  same 
spirit."  ^^  Bishop  White  replied  with  courtesy,  but  otherwise 
not  very  satisfactorily.^^  Bishop  Provoost  seems  not  to  have 
replied  at  all.  A  copy  of  the  letter  to  him  as  preserved  in  the 
Letter  Book  is  here  presented. 

"May  I,  1787. 

The  Right  Reverend  Bishop  Provoost,  New  York. 
Right  Reverend  and  dear  Sir, 

It  is  with  pleasure  I  take  this  opportunity  of  presenting  my 
congratulations  on  your  safe  return  to  New  York,  on  the  suc- 
cess of  your  appUcation  to  the  English  Archbishops,  and  on 
your  recovery  from  your  late  dangerous  illness. 

You  must  be  equally  sensible  with  me  of  the  present  un- 
settled state  of  the  Church  of  England  in  this  Country,  and 
of  the  necessity  of  union  and  concord,  among  all  its  members 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  not  only  to  give  stability  to  it, 
but  to  fix  it  on  its  true  and  proper  foundation.  Possibly  noth- 
ing will  contribute  more  to  this  end  than  uniformity  in  wor- 
ship and  discipline  among  the  Churches  of  the  different  States. 
It  will  be  my  happiness  to  be  able  to  promote  so  good  and 
necessary  a  work:  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  propose,  that  be- 
fore any  decided  steps  may  be  taken,  there  may  be  a  meeting 
of  yourself  and  Bishop  White  with  me  at  such  time  and  place 
as  shall  be  most  convenient;  to  try  whether  some  plan  cannot 
be  adopted  that  shall,  in  a  quiet  and  effectual  way,  secure  the 
great  object  which  I  trust  we  should  all  heartily  rejoice  to  see 
accomplished.     For  my  own  part  I  cannot  help  thinking,  that 

16.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  140. 

17.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  299. 

18.  Ibid.,  pp.  300-3. 


30S  MKMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  most  likely  mclliod  will  be  to  retain  the  present  Common 
Prayer  Book,  accommodating  it  to  the  civil  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  government  of  the  Church,  you  know,  is 
already  settled:  a  body  of  canons  will  however  be  wanting  to 
give  energy  to  the  government,  and  ascertain  its  operation. 

A  stated  Convocation  of  the  Clergy  of  this  State  is  to  be  held 
at  Stamford  on  Thursday  after  Whitsunday.  As  it  is  so  near 
to  New  York,  and  the  journey  may  contribute  to  the  re-estab- 
lishment of  your  health,  I  should  be  much  rejoiced  to  see  you 
there;  more  especially  as  I  think  it  would  promote  the  great 
object,  the  union  of  all  the  Churches.  May  God  direct  us  in 
all  things! 

Believe  me  to  be  Rt.  Rev^.  and  dear  Sir,  your 
aff.  Br.  and  humb^  Servt." 

Bishop  Provoost's  ignoring  of  Bishop  Seabury's  overture 
was  consistent  with  his  previous,  and  indeed  his  subsequent, 
attitude.  In  a  letter  to  Dr.  White,  of  May  20,  1786,  Dr.  Pro- 
voost  says  that  it  would  be  highly  improper  to  give  any  sanc- 
tion to  Bishop  Seabury's  ordinations.  **  It  would  also,"  he 
continues,  "  be  an  insult  upon  the  Church  and  to  the  truly  ven- 
erable prelates  to  whom  we  are  now  making  application  for  the 
succession.  For  my  own  part  I  carry  the  matter  still  further, 
and  as  a  friend  to  the  liberties  of  mankind,  should  be  ex- 
tremely sorry  that  the  conduct  of  my  brethren  here  should 
tend  to  the  resurrection  of  the  sect  of  Non-Jurors  (nearly 
buried  in  oblivion)  whose  slavish  and  absurd  tenets  were  a 
disgrace  to  humanity,  and  God  grant  that  they  may  never  be 
cherished  in  America,  which,  as  my  native  Country,  I  wish 
may  always  be  saved  to  liberty,  both  civil  and  religious."  ^^ 

*'  Our  state  in  this  Country,"  remarks  Bishop  Seabury  in  his 
letter  of  November  i,  1788,  to  Bishop  Abernethy  Drummond 
of  Edinburgh,  "  is  still  unsettled,  and  like  I  fear  to  continue  so. 

19.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  254. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  3O9 

Bishop  White,  of  Philadelphia,  seems  disposed  to  an  Ecclesi- 
astical Union,  but  will  take  no  leading  or  active  part  to  bring 
it  about.  He  will  risk  nothing;  and  Bishop  Provoost  seems 
so  elated  with  the  honor  of  an  English  consecration  that  he 
affects  to  doubt  the  validity  of  mine."  ^^ 

Besides  the  apprehension  that  Bishop  Seabury  had,  that 
there  was  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Churches  to  the 
southward  to  exclude  him  from  the  Ecclesiastical  Union,  it 
was  made  apparent  to  him  that  there  was  somewhere  in  those 
quarters  a  disposition  to  give  the  impression  that  it  was  he 
who  was  striving  to  obstruct  the  completion  of  that  Union :  an 
imputation  which  he  certainly  was  justified  in  resenting.  In 
reference  to  this  he  writes  to  Dr.  Parker,  December  i6,  1788, 
"  As  it  appears  to  me,  all  the  difficulty  lies  with  those 
Churches,  and  not  with  us  in  Connecticut.  I  have  several 
times  proposed  and  urged  a  Union.  It  has  been  received  and 
treated,  I  think,  coldly.  And  yet  I  have  received  several  let- 
ters urging  such  a  union  on  me,  as  though  I  was  the  only 
person  who  opposed  it.  This  is  not  fair.  I  am  ready  to  treat 
of  and  settle  the  terms  of  union  on  any  proper  notice.  But 
Bishops  White  and  Provoost  must  bear  their  part  in  it  actively 
as  well  as  myself;  and  we  must  come  into  the  Union  on  even 
terms,  and  not  as  underlings."  ^^ 

This  feeling  is  manifested  again,  some  months  later,  in  a 
manuscript  which  seems  to  be  the  Bishop's  draft  of  a  letter  to 
Dr.  Parker  of  May  27,  1789,  in  reference  to  the  movement  for 
procuring  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  by  himself  and  Bishops 
White  and  Provoost.  This  paper  seems  to  me  so  suggestive, 
in  several  aspects  of  the  situation,  that  I  quote  almost  the 
whole  of  it,  as  follows :  "  I  cannot  but  approve  of  your 
design  to  have  a  Bp.  to  the  Eastward,  and  from  Mr.  Bass's 
character  and  standing  in  the  Church,   I   am  persuaded  he 

20.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  ZZ7- 

21.  Ibid.  pp.  333-4. 


310  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

would  worthily  and  acceptably  fill  that  station.  With  these 
sentiments  I  shall  readily  meet  your  and  the  Clergy's  wishes, 
by  contributing  all  in  my  power  to  accomplish  an  event  which 
I  much  wish.  But  I  have  my  doubts  of  the  concurrence  of 
the  other  Bps.,  yet  I  hope  they  will  prove  groundless.  I  have 
several  times  mentioned  the  propriety  of  a  Union  between  all 
the  Churches  in  the  States  and  am  ready  to  enter  on  and 
settle  the  terms  of  that  Union  as  far  as  relates  to  Connecticut, 
whenever  Bps.  White  and  Provoost  shall  please  to  come  into 
such  a  measure.  But  then  we  must  meet  them  on  even 
ground.  It  must  be  the  union  of  the  Church  in  Conn*.,  with 
the  Church  of  the  Southern  States  upon  just  and  reasonable 
principles,  not  a  subjection  to  them  founded  on  a  majority  of 
votes.  In  this  matter  I  think  I  shall  have  all  the  Clergy  of 
Connecticut  with  me.  To  accomplish  this  I  see  no  way  but 
for  the  Bps.  White  and  Provoost  with  as  many  Proctors  from 
the  Clergy  as  shall  be  thought  necessary  to  meet  with  the  Bp. 
and  Proctors  of  the  Church  of  Connecticut.  If  they  cannot 
agree  on  a  uniformity  of  Worship,  they  certainly  can  agree  on 
terms  of  perfect  Union,  so  as  to  keep  up  the  most  friendly 
intercourse  by  admitting  each  others  Clergy  and  Communi- 
cants, and  assisting  each  other  by  advice  and  mutual  good  of- 
fices. Indeed  I  do  not  see  the  absolute  necessity  of  exact 
uniformity  in  public  Liturgy  to  keep  up  Christian  unity  be- 
tween Churches  whatever  advantages  may  attend  it.  While 
the  analogy  of  Faith  is  preserved  and  a  due  regard  paid  to 
ancient  Catholic  practice,  a  variety  in  publick  Liturgy  will  be 
attended  with  no  real  detriment.  I  must  also  mention  another 
doubt  I  have  —  whether  it  is  right  that  the  merit  or  demerit 
of  forms  of  P.  Prayer  should  be  ascertained  by  votes  in  a 
large,  or  even  a  small  assembly,  either  of  Clergy  or  Laity,  or 
both?  I  cannot  enlarge  on  this  point  —  your  own  good  sense 
will  suggest  many  reasons  against  it. 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  G.  Con.  will  make  no  abate- 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  311 

ment  in  the  power  of  Lay  Ds.  in  Ec.  matters  —  and  I  think 
the  C  of  C  will  be  averse  to  putting  themselves  into  the  same 
state.  However,  as  our  Convocation  is  to  meet  the  next  week, 
the  question  shall  come  fairly  before  them. 

I  cannot  but  think  it  a  little  hard  that  I  should  be  repre- 
sented as  being  averse  from  a  union  between  the  Churches. 
The  opposition  comes  from  another  quarter,  and  there  the 
blame  ought  to  lie.  I  think  the  Church  in  C.  as  respectable 
on  acct.  of  its  numbers  and  Clergy  as  the  Church  in  any  of 
the  States,  and  feel  that  in  some  instances  it  has  been  treated 
in  a  manner  bordering  on  contempt.  Judge  you,  whether  it 
would  be  right  in  them  to  put  themselves  in  a  situation  that 
will  intail  this  treatment  on  them?  Or  whether  it  would  be 
doing  themselves  justice  always  to  bear  it  with  the  same 
tameness  they  hitherto  have  done  rather  than  throw  any  im- 
pediment in  the  way  of  union  with  those  She  fondly  hoped 
would  treat  her  as  a  Sister.  I  repeat  it;  If  a  union  with 
Con.  be  desired,  it  may  be  had  on  reasonable  and  even  terms 
—  If  more  be  aimed  at,  I  hope  it  will  never  be  effected.  You 
must  excuse  a  little  warmth,  as  I  feel  myself  hurt  by  having 
it  represented  that  I  stood  in  the  way  of  perfect  union.  You 
know  it  cannot  be  obtained  till  the  nonsensical  objection  about 
my  Cons,  be  given  up.  This  matter  does  not  stick  with  Bp. 
W.  But  while  it  does  subsist  it  must  preclude  both  myself 
and  Clergy  from  appearing  at  their  general  Convention.  With 
regard  to  Mr.  Bass  —  I  believe  it  will  be  found  that  Bps.  W 
and  P  are  under  engagements  not  to  consecrate  any  Bp.  till 
they  have  another  Bp.  from  England.  You  can  however  make 
the  experiment ;  or  if  you  choose  it,  you  can  ascertain  whether 
they  would  join  in  such  a  Cons,  before  Mr.  B.  be  elected." 

The  extreme  policy  for  which  Bishop  Provoost  stood  — 
based  as  it  was  in  part  upon  political  prejudice,  and  in  part 
upon  the  "  nonsensical  objection  "  above  mentioned,  did  not 
however,  command  much  support  even  in  his  own  Diocese. 


31^  MEMOIR   OF    UISllOP    SEABURY. 

At  first,  indeed,  his  influence  carried  the  Convention  of  New 
York  to  the  point  of  instructing  delegates  to  General  Conven- 
tion not  to  consent  to  any  act  that  would  imply  the  validity 
of  Bishop  Seabury's  ordinations:  but  in  the  New  York  Con- 
vention of  1788,  the  desire  to  have  the  succession  carried  on  in 
the  English  line  was  not  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  desire 
to  promote  the  union  of  the  Churches  in  all  the  States,  which 
of  course  involved  the  inclusion  of  the  Scottish  line ;  as  may 
appear  from  the  following  two  resolutions :  "  Resolved,  That 
it  is  highly  necessary  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention,  that 
measures  should  be  pursued  to  preserve  the  Episcopal  succes- 
sion in  the  English  line  —  and 

Resolved  also,  That  the  union  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  is  of  great  importance 
and  much  to  be  desired ;  and  that  the  delegates  of  this  State  in 
the  next  General  Convention,  be  instructed  to  promote  that 
union  by  every  prudent  measure,  consistent  with  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Church,  and  the  continuance  of  the  Episcopal 
succession  in  the  English  line."  -^ 

Bishop  Seabury's  impression  that  Bishop  White  was  un- 
willing to  take  the  lead  in  promoting  the  Union  was  not  quite 
correct.  Bishop  White's  way  of  working  was  not  understood 
by  Bishop  Seabury,  to  whose  simple  and  outright  character 
diplomatic  processes  were  uncongenial.  In  fact  Bishop 
White's  was  the  master  mind  in  the  whole  movement  for 
Union,  and  it  had  all  along  been  his  object  to  bring  the  Epis- 
copacy of  the  Church  in  Connecticut  within  that  union.^"^  Had 
Bishop  Provoost  possessed  the  same  feeling,  probably  the  re- 
sult would  have  been  reached  through  conference,  as  Bishop 
Seabury  desired.  Failing  that,  Bishop  White  pursued  his 
purpose   otherwise.     One   mode   of   operation   was    to   work 

22.  Journal  New  York  Convention,  November  5,  1788.  Cf.  Bishop 
White's  Memoirs,  p.  I4in. 

23.  Memoirs,  p.  141. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL   UNION.  313 

through  Dr.  Parker  of  Massachusetts,  the  friend  of  Bishop 
Seabury.  To  him  Bishop  White  wrote  that  as  the  Clergy  of 
Massachusetts  had  not  been  concerned  either  in  the  appUcation 
to  England  or  to  Scotland,  they  had  it  in  their  power  to  act 
the  part  of  mediators  in  bringing  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut 
and  those  of  the  other  States  together.  Out  of  this  move 
grew  the  application,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  made  by  the 
Massachusetts  Clergy  for  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  by  the 
three  Bishops,  Seabury,  White  and  Provoost.  This  application 
met  with  favour  in  the  General  Convention,  which  united  in 
making  request  of  those  Bishops  to  perform  that  action;  and 
although  neither  White  nor  Provoost  were,  as  has  appeared, 
willing  to  grant  that  request,  yet  the  fact  that  the  General 
Convention  made  the  request,  involved  the  recognition  by  that 
body  of  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Episcopate,  and  so 
removed  the  chief  hindrance  to  Bishop  Seabury's  co-operation 
with  the  General  Convention.  This  was  assured  by  the  pas- 
sage of  the  following  resolution  on  the  30th  of  July,  1789: 
'*  Resolved  unanimously.  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Con- 
vention, that  the  consecration  of  the  Right.  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury 
to  the  Episcopal  office  is  valid.'*  And  when  the  Convention 
adjourned  for  the  express  purpose  of  having  the  Connecticut 
Clergy  meet  with  it  in  September,  the  movement  for  the  Con- 
secration of  Dr.  Bass  was  thought  to  have  accomplished  its 
object,  and  Dr.  Bass  soon  afterward  resigned  his  election.-^ 

With  reference  to  this  application  the  General  Convention, 
in  August,  1789,  adopted  a  series  of  five  resolutions,  drawn 
and  moved  by  Dr.  William  Smith,  the  first  and  fourth  of 
which  it  will  suffice  for  our  purpose  to  record  here. 

"  i^*  Resolved,  That  a  complete  order  of  Bishops,  derived 
as  well  under  the  English  as  the  Scots  line  of  Episcopacy,  doth 

24.  See  Bishop  White's  account  of  this  matter,  Memoirs,  pp.  142-4. 
A  statement  of  the  application  and  of  the  resolves  of  General  Conven- 
tion thereupon  will  be  found  in  the  same  volume,  pp.  ZZZ-33S- 


314  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

now  subsist  within  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  per- 
sons of  the  Right  Rev.  WilHam  White  D.  D.  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania; 
the  Right.  Rev.  Samuel  Provoost,  D.  D.  Bishop  of  the  said 
Church  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  Right.  Rev.  Sam- 
uel Seabury,  D.  D.  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  State  of 
Connecticut. 

4*^  Resolved,  That  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  White  and  the 
Right  Rev.  Dr.  Provoost  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  requested 
to  join  with  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury,  in  complying  with  the 
prayer  of  the  Clergy  of  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire,  for  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass, 
Bishop  elect  of  the  Churches  in  the  said  States;  but  that  be- 
fore the  said  Bishops  comply  with  the  request  aforesaid,  it  be 
proposed  to  the  Churches  in  the  New  England  States  to  meet 
the  Churches  of  these  States,  with  the  said  three  Bishops,  in  an 
adjourned  Convention,  to  settle  certain  articles  of  union  and 
discipline  among  all  the  Churches,  previous  to  such  conse- 
cration." 2^ 

On  the  8th  of  August  this  Convention,  after  having  adopted 
a  Constitution,  adjourned  to  meet  at  Philadelphia  on  the  29th 
of  September  following,  and  before  its  adjournment  appointed 
a  Committee,  of  Bishop  White  and  others,  for  the  performance 
of  various  duties,  among  which  were  the  answering,  so  far  as 
necessary,  of  Bishop  Seabury's  letters ;  the  forwarding  of  the 
minutes  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention  to  him,  and  to  the 
eastern  and  other  churches  not  included  in  the  union ;  the  no- 
tifying them  of  the  time  and  place  to  which  the  convention 
should  adjourn,  and  the  requesting  of  their  attendance  at  the 
same  for  the  good  purposes  of  union  and  general  govern- 
ment.^^ 

The  letters  of  Bishop  Seabury  which  were  thus  referred  to 

25.  Bioren's  Journals  General  Convention,  pp.  53-54. 

26.  Ibid.,  pp.  61-64. 


THE  ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  315 

the  Committee  had  been  addressed  respectively  to  Bishop  White, 
under  date  of  June  29,  1789,  and  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  William 
Smith,  under  date  of  July  23,  1789.  The  letter  to  Bishop 
White  has  been  printed  in  full  by  Dr.  Beardsley.^^  It  goes 
very  candidly  and  patiently  over  various  matters  in  the 
proposed  formularies,  which  the  author  deprecates,  and  dis- 
cusses them  with  learning  and  with  moderation.  As  to  some 
of  these  matters  the  writer  had  opportunity  to  use  his  influence 
in  the  subsequent  revision  and  settlement  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer.  The  whole  letter  is  admirable.  Further 
reference  to  it  may  be  made  hereafter;  but  at  present  it  is 
proposed  to  give  the  part  of  it  which  relates  particularly  to  the 
matter  of  the  inclusion  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut  within 
the  Union.  The  writer  represents  the  Lay  delegates  at  a  re- 
cent Connecticut  Convention  as  having  declined  every  inter- 
ference in  Church  Government  or  in  the  reformation  of  Lit- 
urgies, and  then  speaks  of  the  feeling  of  the  Clergy  and  of 
himself. 

"  The  Clergy  supposed  that  in  your  Constitution,  any  repre- 
sentation from  them  would  be  inadmissible  without  Lay  Dele- 
gates, nor  could  they  submit  to  offer  themselves  to  make  a 
part  of  any  meeting  where  the  authority  of  their  Bishop  had 
been  disputed  by  one  Bishop,  and  probably  by  his  influence, 
by  a  number  of  others  who  were  to  compose  that  meeting. 
They  therefore  must  consider  themselves  as  excluded,  till  that 
point  shall  be  settled  to  their  satisfaction,  which  they  hope 
will  be  done  by  your  Convention. 

For  my  own  part,  gladly  would  I  contribute  to  the  Union 
and  Uniformity  of  all  our  Churches;  but  while  Bishop  Pro- 
voost  disputes  the  validity  of  my  consecration,  I  can  take  no 
step  towards  the  accomplishment  of  so  great  and  desirable  an 
object.     This  point,  I  take  it,  is  now  in  such  a  state  that  it 

27.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  349-356. 


3l6  MEMOIR  OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

must  be  settled,  either  by  your  Convention,  or  by  an  appeal 
to  the  good  sense  of  the  Christian  World.  But  as  this  is  a 
subject  in  which  I  am  personally  concerned,  I  shall  refrain 
from  any  remarks  upon  it,  hoping  that  the  candor  and  good 
sense  of  your  Convention  will  render  the  further  mention  of  it 
altogether  unnecessary. 

You  mention  the  necessity  of  having  your  succession  com- 
pleted from  England,  both  as  it  is  the  choice  of  your  Churches, 
and  in  consequence  of  implied  obligations  you  are  under  in 
England.  I  have  no  right  to  dictate  to  you  on  this  point. 
There  can,  however,  be  no  harm  in  wishing  it  were  otherwise. 
Nothing  would  tend  so  much  to  the  unity  and  uniformity  of 
our  Churches,  as  the  three  Bishops  now  in  the  States  joining  in 
the  consecration  of  a  fourth.  I  could  say  much  on  this  sub- 
ject, but  should  I  do  so,  it  may  be  supposed  to  proceed  from 
interested  views.  I  shall  therefore  leave  it  to  your  own  good 
sense,  only  hoping  you  and  the  Convention  will  deliberately 
consider  whether  the  implied  obligations  in  England,  and  the 
wishes  of  your  Churches  be  so  strong  that  they  must  not  give 
way  to  the  prospect  of  securing  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
Church. 

The  grand  objection  in  Connecticut  to  the  power  of  Lay 
Delegates  in  your  Constitution  is  their  making  part  of  a 
judicial  consistory  for  the  trial  and  deprivation  of  Clergymen. 
This  appears  to  us  to  be  a  new  power,  utterly  unknown  in  all 
Episcopal  Churches,  and  inconsistent  with  their  constitution. 
That  it  should  be  given  up,  we  do  not  expect ;  power  we  know 
is  not  easily  relinquished.  We  think,  however,  it  ought  to  be 
given  up;  and  that  it  will  be  a  source  of  oppression,  and  that 
it  will  operate  as  a  clog  on  the  due  execution  of  ecclesiastical 
authority.  If  a  Bishop  with  his  Clergy  are  not  thought  com- 
petent to  censure  or  depose  a  disorderly  brother  or  not  to  have 
sufficient  principle  to  do  it,  they  are  unfit  for  their  stations. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL   UNION.  317 

It  is,  however,  a  presumption  that  cannot  be  made,  and  there- 
fore can  be  no  ground  of  action. 

I  observe  you  mention  that  the  authority  of  Lay  delegates 
in  your  Constitution  is  misunderstood.  We  shall  be  glad  to 
be  better  informed,  and  shall  not  pertinaciously  persist  in  any 
unfair  constructions,  when  they  are  fairly  pointed  out  to  us. 
That  the  assent  of  the  Laity  should  be  given  to  the  laws  which 
affect  them  equally  with  the  Clergy,  I  think  is  right,  and  I 
believe  will  be  disputed  nowhere,  and  the  rights  of  the  laity 
we  have  no  disposition  to  invade."  ^^ 

It  will  be  convenient  to  observe  here  that  the  "'  grand  diffi- 
culty "  of  conferring  judicial  character  upon  laymen  for  the 
discipline  of  the  Clergy  was  removed  in  the  Constitution  of 
August,  1789,  so  that  when  the  representatives  of  the  Eastern 
Churches  met  the  General  Convention  in  October,  they  did  not 
find  any  cause  of  objection  on  that  score.  The  Article  num- 
bered VIII  in  the  proposed  Constitution  of  1785  had  made 
every  Clergyman,  Bishop,  Presbyter  or  Deacon  amenable  to 
the  authority  of  the  Convention  in  the  State  to  which  he  be- 
longed, so  far  as  related  to  suspension  or  removal  from  of- 
fice. In  that  form  the  Constitution,  with  other  papers,  was 
submitted  to  the  English  Bishops  in  the  application  for  conse- 
cration of  American  Bishops.  In  a  letter  to  the  members  of 
the  Convention  laid  before  that  body  in  1786,  the  Archbishops 
of  Canterbury  and  York  strongly  represent  that  the  eighth 
Article  of  the  Constitution  submitted  to  them,  appeared  to 
them  to  be  a  degradation  of  the  clerical,  and  still  more  of  the 
Episcopal  character,  and  express  the  hope  that  the  Article  may 
be  changed.^^  The  Convention  declined  to  make  any  change 
in  consequence  of  this  representation,"^  having  already  made  a 

28.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  349-356. 

29.  Bioren's  Journals,  pp.  34-35. 

30.  Ibid.,  p.  42. 


3l8  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

modification  in  one  respcct,^^  which,  however,  did  not  go  to  the 
root  of  the  matter.  But  in  the  new  Constitution  brought  be- 
fore the  General  Convention  of  1789,  and  adopted  in  August, 
Article  6,  taking  the  place  of  the  former  objectionable  Article 
VIII,  discarded  the  unwholesome  ideas  upon  which  that  Ar- 
ticle had  been  based  —  that  the  Convention  possessed  judicial 
authority,  and  that  the  Clergy  were  amenable  to  it  as  to  a  ju- 
dicial body.  For  the  power  to  judge,  involved  in  making  the 
Clergy  amenable  to  it  so  far  as  related  to  the  tenure  of  their 
Office,  was  wholly  withdrawn;  and  for  it  was  substi- 
tuted the  right  to  institute  a  mode  of  trial  —  which  was  dis- 
tinctly a  legislative  power,  to  the  exercise  of  which  the  objec- 
tions formerly  made  in  the  matter  were  clearly  inapplicable. 
How  far  the  representations  of  Bishop  Seabury  on  this  point, 
which  had  been  strongly  and  repeatedly  made  prior  to  the 
meeting  of  this  General  Convention,  were  influential  in  pro- 
ducing the  new  provision  cannot  perhaps  be  known.  The 
Convention  of  1786  had  declined  to  heed  the  remonstrance  of 
the  English  Prelates  on  that  head,  but  their  objection  might 
naturally  have  had  weight  afterwards;  and  Bishop  Seabury 's 
views  on  the  matter  being  also  well  known,  and  his  inclusion 
in  the  Union  being  the  desire  of  Bishop  White,  it  is  very 
probable  that  that  desire  was  an  additional  incentive  to  the 
more  satisfactory  remodelling  of  the  Article. 

The  letter  to  Dr.  William  Smith  which  was  also  before  the 
General  Convention  of  1789,  refers  again  to  the  doubt  cast 
upon  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  consecration  by  Bishop 
Provoost  and  others;  and  also  calls  attention  to  the  require- 
ment of  the  Constitution  that  the  Church  in  each  State  should 
send  Lay  as  well  as  Clerical  delegates,  from  which  the  Con- 
necticut Clergy  understood  that  they  were  inadmissible  as  rep- 
resentatives unless  accompanied  by  Lay  delegates. 

31.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  25. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  319 

The  General  Convention  recorded,  as  a  reason  for  their 
resolution  recognizing  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Con- 
secration, that  it  appeared  from  his  letters  that  he  "  lay  under 
some  misapprehensions  concerning  an  entry  in  the  minutes  of 
a  former  Convention,  as  intending  some  doubt  of  the  validity 
of  his  consecration."^-  There  was  very  little  misapprehension 
as  to  the  position  of  some  members  of  the  Convention ;  but  the 
action  of  the  Convention  itself  was  capable  of  another  con- 
struction, as  resulting  from  the  fear  of  having  any  of  its  mem- 
bers under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  not  connected  with  the 
Convention.  With  regard  to  the  necessity  of  lay  representa- 
tion, Bishop  Seabury  does  appear  to  have  been  under  a  mis- 
apprehension, owing  to  a  change  in  the  Constitution,  of  which 
he  was  probably  unaware.  In  1785  the  Convention  provided 
that  '*  there  shall  be  a  representation  of  both  Clergy  and  Laity 
of  the  Church  in  each  State."  In  1786  and  1789,  the  provision 
was  that  every  Diocese  should  be  entitled  to  Clerical  and  Lay 
representation.  This  change  enabled  the  Church  in  Connec- 
ticut to  send  Clerical  representatives,  without  Lay  delegates, 
to  the  Convention;  and  the  recognition  of  the  validity  of 
Bishop  Seabury's  Consecration,  removed  the  obstruction  which 
had  hitherto  precluded  the  attendance  of  himself  and  his 
Clergy :  so  that  when  the  official  invitation,  dated  Philadelphia 
August  1 6th,  1789,  sent  in  accordance  with  the  authority  of 
the  Convention,  was  received,  Bishop  Seabury  readily  ac- 
cepted it. 

The  Committee  charged  with  the  duty  of  making  this  com- 
munication to  Bishop  Seabury,  consisted  of  Bishop  White, 
Rev.  Dr.  William  Smith,  Rev.  Dr.  Magaw,  Hon.  Francis  Hop- 
kinson.  Tench  Coxe  Escf ,  and  William  Ward  Burrows  Esq^.^^ 

The  original  of  this  document,  now  before  me,  apparently 
in  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  Smith,  and  with  the  signatures  of 

32.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  51. 

33.  Ibid.,  p.  64. 


320  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

all  of  the  Committee  except  Mr.  Burrows,  is  so  admirable  a 
model  of  what  such  a  communication  should  be,  that  I  deny 
myself  its  publication  here  in  full  with  great  reluctance.  But 
two  or  three  paragraphs  of  the  letter  it  seems  most  desirable 
to  present,  as  showing  with  how  much  dignity,  good  feeling, 
and  precision,  the  Committee  gave  effect  to  the  candid  desire 
on  the  part  of  the  Convention  to  remove  the  obstacles  which 
the  action  of  that  body  might  have  seemed  in  any  way  to  in- 
terpose to  the  inclusion  of  the  Eastern  Churches  within  the 
Ecclesiastical  Union. 

"  By  the  second  Article  of  our  printed  Constitution  (as  al- 
tered and  inserted  in  our  Journal)  you  will  observe  that  your 
main  difficulty,  respecting  Lay-Representation,  is  wholly  re- 
moved, upon  the  good  and  salutary  principle  admitted  on  both 
sides,  viz  "That  there  may  be  a  strong  and  efficacious  Union 
between  Churches  where  the  Usage  is  in  some  part  different  " 
—  (It  was  indeed  long  the  case  in  many  Dioceses  of  Eng- 
land)—  "  The  admission  of  the  Church  of  Connecticut  and 
other  Churches  of  the  Eastern  States  (where  there  is  no  Lay- 
Representation  according  to  their  present  practice  or  usage 
is,  by  the  Article  of  our  Constitution  above  mentioned,  ex- 
pressly provided  for,  upon  your  ozvn  principles  of  representa- 
tion ;  while  the  Churches,  within  our  present  Union,  are  not 
required  to  make  any  sacrifice  of  their  principles;  it  being  only 
declared  by  the  s^.  Article  —  "That  the  Church  in  each  State 
shall  be  entitled  to  a  representation,  either  of  Clergy  or  Laity, 
or  of  both.  And  if  the  Convention  (or  Church)  of  any  State 
should  neglect,  or  decline,  to  appoint  their  Deputies,  of  either 
Order,  (or,  which  is  the  same,  if  it  should  be  their  rule  or 
usage  to  appoint  only  out  of  one  Order)  ;  or  if  any  of  those 
appointed  should  neglect  to  attend,  or  be  prevented  by  sick- 
ness or  any  other  accident;  the  Church  in  such  State,  (Dis- 
trict or   Diocese)    shall  nevertheless  be  considered   as   duly 


THE    ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  321 

represented  by  such  Deputy  or  Deputies  as  may  attend,  of 
either  Order. 

Here,  then  every  case  is  intended  to  be  provided  for;  and 
experience  will  either  show  that  an  efficacious  Union  may  be 
accomplished  upon  those  principles ;  or  mutual  love  and  good- 
will, with  a  further  reciprocation  of  sentiments,  will  eventually 
lead  to  a  more  perfect  Uniformity,  both  of  discipline  and 
doctrine. 

As  to  the  second  point,  respecting  your  own  Consecration, 
and  the  vaHdity  of  the  Scots-Episcopacy,  we  are  persuaded 
that  you  have  fallen  into  some  misapprehension  concerning 
the  entry  made  in  the  Journal  of  a  former  Convention ;  or  that 
you  have  been  misinformed  of  the  circumstances  attending 
it.  Nothing  was  ever  agitated  in  that  Convention  concerning 
the  Scots-Episcopacy ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  you  may  perceive 
by  the  Journal,  that  the  Convention  would  not  suffer  any 
question  to  come  before  them,  which  implied  even  a  doubt  of 
the  validity  of  your  Consecration;  and  the  proceedings  of  the 
present  Convention  upon  that  subject,  we  are  persuaded,  will 
be  more  than  sufficient  to  remove  every  obstacle  to  our  future 
Union,  which  might  have  been  apprehended  on  that  score." 

In  compliance  with  the  most  gracious  and  satisfactory  in- 
vitation thus  extended,  Bishop  Seabury  attended,  on  the  first 
day  of  October  1789,  the  adjourned  session  of  the  General 
Convention  in  Philadelphia;  and  with  him  attended  two  of  his 
Clergy,  the  Rev.  Mr  Jarvis  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hubbard  as 
representing  the  Churches  in  New  Hampshire  and  Massa- 
chusetts. 

"All  things  now  appeared  to  tend  to  an  happy  union,"  writes 
Bishop  White :  but  he  goes  on  to  relate  that  at  this  point  cer- 
tain laymen  of  the  Convention  expressed  scruples  as  to  ad- 
mitting Bishop  Seabury  to  membership  in  the  Convention,  on 
the  ground  that  he  was  in  receipt  of  half  pay  as  a  retired 


^22  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

British  Chaplain.  The  good  sense  and  reasonable  explanations 
of  Bishop  White  seem  to  have  disposed  of  the  objection  so  that 
it  was  never  formally  made,  though  he  says  he  was  not  without 
apprehensions  that  it  might  be  so  made.  It  was  pointed  out  to 
the  objectors  that  the  half  pay  was  a  compensation  to  Bishop 
Seabury  for  former  services,  and  not  for  any  now  expected  of 
him ;  that  it  did  not  prevent  him  from  being  a  citizen,  with  all 
the  rights  attached  to  the  character,  in  Connecticut,  and  that 
any  one  in  like  circumstances  who  might  be  returned  to  Con- 
gress must  necessarily  be  admitted  a  member  of  that  body; 
and  that,  as  there  was  no  law  covering  the  case,  there  was  no 
reason  why  an  Ecclesiastical  body  should  be  more  particular 
in  the  matter  than  a  civil  body.^^ 

The  Convention  having  resolved  that  for  the  better  promo- 
tion of  union  with  the  eastern  Churches,  the  Constitution 
adopted  by  the  same  body  in  the  previous  session  in  August, 
was  still  open  to  amendment,  by  virtue  of  the  powers  dele- 
gated to  the  Convention;  and  having  appointed  a  Committee 
to  confer  with  the  representatives  of  those  Churches ;  and  such 
conference  having  been  held,  the  Committee  reported  on  the 
following  day,  "  That  they  have  had  a  full,  free  and  friendly 
conference  with  the  deputies  of  the  said  Churches,  who  on  be- 
half of  the  Church  in  their  several  States,  and  by  virtue  of 
sufficient  authority  from  them,  have  signified,  that  they  do  not 
object  to  the  Constitution,  which  was  approved  at  the  former 
session  of  this  Convention,  if  the  third  article  of  that  Consti- 
tution may  be  so  modified,  as  to  declare  explicitly  the  right  of 
the  Bishops,  when  sitting  in  a  separate  House,  to  originate  and 
propose  acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the  other  House  of  Con- 
vention; and  to  negative  such  acts  proposed  by  the  other 
House,  as  they  may  disapprove.  Your  Committee  .  .  . 
recommend     .     .     .     that  the  third  article  of  the  Constitution 

34.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  145. 


THE   ECCLESIASTICAL    UNION.  323 

may  be  altered  accordingly.  Upon  such  alteration  being  made, 
it  is  declared  by  the  deputies  from  the  Churches  in  the  eastern 
States,  that  they  will  subscribe  the  Constitution,  and  become 
members  o£  this  General  Convention."^^ 

In  the  Constitution  as  it  had  been  adopted  in  August  1789, 
Article  3  provided  that  the  Bishops  when  there  should  be  three 
or  more  in  the  Churches  associated  under  the  Constitution, 
should  form  a  House  of  revision.  To  this  House  was  to  be 
submitted  any  proposed  act  adopted  by  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies.  If  the  House  of  revision  concurred  with 
the  other  house  the  act  had  the  force  of  law.  If  the  House  of 
revision  did  not  concur,  the  act  was  to  be  reconsidered  by  the 
other  House ;  and  if  there  adhered  to  by  a  three  fifths  majority 
the  act  became  a  law  notwithstanding  the  negative  of  the 
House  of  revision.  This  provision,  of  course,  assigned  to  the 
Bishops  an  entirely  subordinate  position  in  the  system.  What 
the  representatives  of  the  eastern  Churches  wanted  was  that 
the  House  of  Bishops  should  be  put  on  terms  of  equality  with 
the  other  House ;  with  the  same  right  to  originate  acts  as  was 
possessed  by  it,  and  with  the  same  right  to  negative  its  action, 
as  it  possessed  to  negative  the  action  of  the  Episcopal  House. 
In  other  words  the  consent  of  both  Houses  should  be  essential 
to  give  to  any  act  the  force  of  law;  and  each  House  was  to 
have  the  same  right  as  the  other  to  originate  measures,  and  to 
concur  or  not  concur  in  measures  submitted  to  it  by  the  other 
House.  Hence  the  condition  proposed  by  the  representatives 
of  the  eastern  Churches  to  the  Committee,  and  by  the  Com- 
mittee recommended  to  be  accepted  by  the  Convention.  The 
condition  was  not  fully  accepted,  but  it  was  so  far  accepted  as 
to  recognize  the  equality  of  the  two  Houses  in  the  right  to 
originate  measures,  though  the  equality  in  respect  to  the  power 
of  the  negative  was  not  conceded ;  the  reservation  being  made 

35.  Bioren's  Journals,  pp.  72-7^. 


324  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABUKY. 

that  the  negative  of  the  House  of  Bishops  might  be  overruled 
by  a  four  fifths  majority  of  the  other  House;  and  on  this  basis 
the  matter  was  concluded,  and  the  Constitution  as  thus 
amended  was  acceded  to  by  the  eastern  men  as  well  as  by  the 
other  representatives. 

This  was  the  best  arrangement  that  the  then  state  of  public 
opinion  as  reflected  in  General  Convention  permitted.  The 
assertion  of  the  right  of  absolute  equality  between  the  two 
Houses,  however,  had  been  made,  and  ultimately  that  right 
was  recognized  and  conceded.  In  effect,  it  was  established 
very  soon  afterwards,  by  giving  the  right  of  negative  to  the 
Bishops  on  certain  conditions  which  were  quite  in  their  own 
power  to  comply  with ;  so  that  the  right  was  practically  abso- 
lute, though  formally  conditional.  But  the  equality  was  not 
established  entirely  without  conditions  until  the  revision  of 
the  Constitution  in  1901  —  which  seems  to  show  that  Bishop 
Seabury  and  his  associates  were,  in  this  matter  of  fundamental 
principle,  more  than  a  hundred  years  in  advance  of  their  con- 
temporaries. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER. 

1789. 

IN  the  course  of  the  life  which  we  are  following  we  come 
to  the  associations  which  it  had  with  the  liturgical  work 
which  engaged  the  attention  of  the  first  House  of  Bishops. 
The  life  of  Bishop  Seabury  can  hardly  be  appreciated  without 
some  account  of  his  influence  upon  that  work;  and  the  nature 
of  that  influence  can  hardly  be  understood  without  some  ac- 
count of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  it  was  affected  by  the 
reorganization  of  the  Church  in  this  Country  after  the  Rev- 
olution. The  theme,  in  its  twofold  aspect,  is  as  much  too  large 
for  a  chapter  as  it  is  for  the  capacities  of  the  writer :  but  the 
effort  to  treat  it  has  to  be  made,  and  it  is  hoped  may  contribute 
something  to  the  better  understanding  of  matters  not  always 
clearly  apprehended. 

The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  established  in  the  Church  of 
England  was,  of  course,  in  use  by  the  members  of  that  Church 
in  the  Colonies.  When,  after  the  Revolution,  those  Colonies 
had  become  independent  States,  the  members  of  the  Church 
which  had  been  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Colonies,  natur- 
ally continued  in  the  use  of  the  same  book  as  part  of  the  privi- 
lege of  their  common  inheritance.  They  were,  however,  of 
necessity  obliged  to  seek  some  alteration  of  the  Book  to  adapt 
it  to  the  different  circumstances  in  which  they  found  them- 
selves, owing  to  the  change  in  their  Civil  relations ;  and  while 
this  was  on  all  hands  acknowledged  to  be  necessary,  it  was  the 

325 


326  MEMOIR    OF    r.ISnOP    SEABURY. 

feeling  of  some  that  it  would  be  well  that  opportunity  should 
be  taken  to  make  other  changes  than  those  which  the  civil  con- 
ditions suggested;  and  changes  of  both  these  kinds  were  pro- 
posed in  different  quarters,  and  to  some  extent  acted  upon  in 
the  period  between  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
the  States  and  the  authoritative  establishment  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  under  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  in  1789. 

In  Connecticut  where,  as  we  have  seen,  there  had  been  since 
1784  a  complete  Church  which  was  not  among  the  number  of 
those  which  were  in  process  of  association  under  a  common 
Constitution,  action  was  taken  by  the  Bishop  upon  consultation 
with  his  Convocation,  both  in  August  1785,  by  the  enjoining 
of  alterations  required  by  the  change  in  Civil  conditions,  and  in 
September  1786,  by  the  recommendation  to  the  Congregations 
of  the  Church  in  that  State  of  a  Liturgy  or  Communion  Office 
which  differed  in  important  respects  from  the  English  Liturgy 
of  that  day. 

Intermediate  between  these  two  promulgations,  in  October 
1785,  Article  IX  of  the  proposed  Constitution  of  that  year  pro- 
vided that,  corresponding  to  the  representation  of  a  desire  for 
further  alterations  of  the  Liturgy  than  those  made  necessary 
by  the  Revolution,  the  English  Book  as  changed  in  accordance 
with  alterations  then  proposed  and  recommended,  "  shall  be 
used  in  this  Church  when  the  same  shall  have  been  ratified  by 
the  Conventions  which  have  respectively  sent  Deputies  to  this 
Convention."^' 

Article  IX  of  the  proposed  Constitution  of  1786,  professing 
the  same  reason  for  action  on  the  subject,  referring  to  the 
Book  as  "  revised  and  proposed  "  to  the  use  of  the  Church, 
provides  that  this  Book  "  may  be  used  by  the  Church  in  such 
of  the  States  as  have  adopted  or  may  adopt  the  same  in  their 
particular  Conventions,  till  further  provision  is  made,  in  this 

I.  Bioren's  Journals  General  Convention,  pp.  9,  10. 


THE   BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  32/ 

case,  by  the  first  General  Convention  which  shall  assemble  with 
sufficient  power  to  ratify  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer  for  the 
Church  in  these  States."^ 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Book  referred  to  in  these  Articles 
differed  from  the  Book  set  forth  afterwards  in  1789  in  re- 
spect of  authority.  The  power  of  the  Conventions  in  which  al- 
terations in  the  English  Book  had  been  made  extending  no 
further  than  to  recommendation,  the  Book  was  described  by 
those  Conventions  as  "  proposed ;"  and  accordingly  the  Book 
has  ever  since  been  known  as  "  The  Proposed  Book."  As 
such  it  is  simply  a  historical  record  of  an  effort  made  by  some, 
who  were  influential  among  the  Churches  engaged  in  the  plan 
of  association,  to  introduce  certain  changes  in  the  English 
Book  which  seemed  to  them  desirable;  and  therefore  it  never 
had  any  authority  as  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the 
Church  in  this  Country.  It  followed,  apparently,  the  pattern 
of  that  proposed  revision  of  the  English  Book  which  had  been 
prepared  in  England  by  a  Commission  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose in  1689,  composed  of  Tillotson,  Burnet  and  others,  which 
the  Preface  to  the  Proposed  Book  describes  as  a  "  great  and 
good  work  "  which  had  "  miscarried."  That  is  to  say,  it  never 
went  into  effect,  more  than  did  the  American  Proposal  which 
was  modelled  on  it.^ 

But  although  not  authoritative  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  the  Proposed  Book  was  naturally  understood  as  ex- 
pressive of  the  sense  of  the  representative  body  by  which  it 
had  been  recommended ;  and  in  that  view  it  excited  grave  ap- 
prehensions in  other  quarters.  Bishop  Seabury's  general  esti- 
mate of  it  may  be  understood  from  his  letter  to  Dr.  Parker  of 

2.  Bioren's  Journals  General  Convention,  p.  25. 

3.  The  Book,  with  its  preface,  may  be  seen  in  the  valuable  work  of 
the  Rev.  Peter  Hall  entitled  Reliquiae  Liturgicse,  vol.  V   (Bath,  1847). 

See  an  interesting  Reference  to  the  Commission  of  1689  in  Bishop 
Dowden's  Workmanship  of  the  Prayer  Book,  I34-I39- 


328  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

February  13,  1789;  in  which  he  says:  "  I  never  thought  there 
was  any  heterodoxy  in  the  southern  Prayer  Book:  but  I  do 
think  the  true  doctrine  is  left  too  unguarded,  and  that  the 
offices  are,  some  of  them,  lowered  to  such  a  degree,  that  they 
will,  in  a  great  measure,  lose  their  influence."^  In  the  letter 
to  Bishop  White,  above  referred  to  as  laid  before  General  Con- 
vention, he  examines  particularly  various  points  in  the  Book 
which  seem  to  him  objectionable;  and  shows  very  strongly 
his  want  of  sympathy  with  the  disposition  to  make  changes 
in  well  founded  forms  for  the  mere  sake  of  general  accepta- 
bility. The  experience  of  the  Church  of  England,  he  intimates, 
ought  to  counteract  weakness  of  this  sort.  "  The  concessions 
she  has  made  in  giving  up  several  primitive,  and  I  suppose 
apostolical  usages,  to  gratify  the  humors  of  fault  finding  men, 
show  the  inefficacy  of  such  conduct.  She  has  learned  wis- 
dom from  her  experiences.  Why  should  not  we  also  take 
a  lesson  in  her  school  ?  If  the  humor  be  pursued  of  giving  up 
points  on  every  demand,  in  fifty  years  we  shall  scarce  have 
the  name  of  Christianity  left.  For  God's  sake,  Sir,  let  us  re- 
member that  it  is  the  particular  business  of  the  Bishops  of 
Christ's  Church  to  preserve  it  pure  and  undefiled,  in  faith  and 
practice,  according  to  the  model  left  by  apostolic  practice. 
And  may  God  give  us  grace  and  courage  to  act  accordingly  !"^ 
The  use  of  this  Book,  according  to  the  recommendation  of 
1786,  was  to  continue  until  further  provision  should  be  made 
by  the  first  General  Convention  which  should  assemble  with 
sufficient  power  to  ratify  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer  for  the 
use  of  the  Church.  Such  further  provision  was  made  in  the 
General  Convention  of  1789,  by  the  establishment  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  under  the  authority  of  Article  8  of  the 
Constitution  previously  adopted  in  the  same  session.  The 
Article  was  as  follows :  "  A  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  ad- 

4.  Beardsley's   life  of  Bp.   Seabury,  p.   327. 

5,  Manuscript  Letter  Book. 


THE   BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  329 

ministration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  Ceremonies 
of  the  Church,  articles  of  rehgion,  and  a  form  and  manner  of 
making,  ordaining  and  consecrating  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons, when  estabhshed  by  this  or  a  future  General  Convention, 
shall  be  used  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  those 
States  which  have  adopted  this  Constitution." 

This  Article  is  the  charter  of  General  Convention  authoris- 
ing supreme  legislative  action  upon  the  matters  specified 
therein;  whether  such  action  were  taken  in  the  session  then 
being  held  or  in  future  sessions  of  the  same  body.*^ 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  another  Article,  that 
when  there  should  be  three  or  more  Bishops  in  the  Churches 
associated  under  the  Constitution  they  should  form  a  separate 
House,  that  House  came  now  in  the  October  session  of  1789 
first  into  existence,  consisting  of  Bishop  Seabury,  Bishop 
White  and  Bishop  Provoost;  and  owing  to  the  absence  of 
Bishop  Provoost  from  that  session,  the  other  Bishops,  Seabury 
and  White,  acted  as  the  quorum  of  the  House.  The  principal 
act  of  the  session  of  the  Convention,  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  was  the  establishment  of  the  Prayer  Book ;  which 
was  practically  then  completed,  athough  some  work  was  post- 
poned to  a  future  session.  *'  The  journal  shows,"  remarks 
Bishop  White,  writing  many  years  afterward,  *'  that  some  parts 
of  it  were  drawn  up  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Depu- 
ties, and  other  parts  of  it,  by  the  House  of  Bishops.  In  the  lat- 
ter, owing  to  the  smallness  of  the  number  and  a  disposition  in 
both  of  them  to  accommodate,  business  was  dispatched  with 
great  celerity ;  as  must  be  seen  by  any  one  who  attends  to  the 
progress  of  the  subjects  recorded  on  the  journal;  To  this  day, 
there  are  recollected  with  satisfaction,  the  hours  which  were 
spent  with  Bishop  Seabury  on  the  important  subjects  which 

6.  Cf.    "  Notes   on   the    Constitution    of    1901,"    by    W.    J.    Seabury, 
(Thomas  Whittaker,  New  York),  pp.  1 18-125. 


330  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

came  before  them ;  and  especially  the  Christian  temper  which 
he  manifested  all  along  J 

It  would  seem  from  Bishop  White's  account,  that  a  differ- 
ent view  of  the  nature  of  the  work  in  which  they  were  en- 
gaged, was  taken  by  the  two  Houses;  the  House  of  Bishops 
assuming  that  their  duty  was  to  revise  the  English  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  as  the  existing  basis  to  which  amendments 
were  to  be  made,  adapting  it  to  the  use  of  the  Church  in  this 
country;  and  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  acting 
on  the  assumption  that  a  Liturgy  was  to  be  formed,  without 
their  being  beholden  to  any  existing  book,  although  with 
liberty  to  take  from  any,  whatever  the  Convention  should 
think  fit.  The  latter  position,  as  Bishop  White  remarks,  "  was 
very  unreasonable;  because  the  different  Congregations  of 
the  Church  were  always  understood  to  be  possessed  of  a  lit- 
urgy, before  the  consecration  of  her  bishops  or  the  existence 
of  her  conventions."^  The  variance,  however,  does  not  appear 
to  have  led  to  any  serious,  or,  at  least,  lasting  complications: 
and,  whether  by  amendment  of  the  English  Book,  as  in  one 
House;  or  by  process  of  selection  from  that,  regarded  as  one 
among  others,  as  in  the  other  House;  the  result  was  the  sub- 
stantial conformity  of  the  American  to  the  English  Book, 
both  Houses  agreeing  in  such  adaptation  as  seemed  desirable 
for  the  American  use. 

There  are,  of  course,  numerous  details  of  variation  between 
the  two  books,  both  in  the  Communion  Office  and  elsewhere; 
but  the  consideration  of  these,  though  full  of  liturgical  interest, 
would  involve  too  great  a  digression  in  this  place.^  The  chief 
difference  between  these  Books,  and  the  one  which  especially 

7.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  149, 

8.  Ibid.,  p.  147. 

9.  Dr.  Hart's  Reprint  of  Bishop  Seabtiry's  Office,  and  Bishop  Dow- 
den's  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office  will  be  found  useful  in 
this  connection. 


THE   BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  33^ 

claims  our  present  attention,  as  having  owed  its  existence  pri- 
marily to  Bishop  Seabury,  lies  in  what  is  called  the  Prayer  of 
Consecration  in  the  Eucharistic  office.  Before  endeavouring 
to  explain  this  difference,  however,  it  will  be  proper  to  notice 
certain  other  points  as  to  which  the  influence  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  was  not  so  complete,  though  in  regard  to  some  of  them  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  not  altogether  without  effect:  for, 
quite  apart  from  the  question  of  his  influence,  it  is  matter  of 
interest  in  the  present  enquiry  to  observe  the  principles  on 
which  he  acted.  His  views  upon  these  points  are  freely  ex- 
pressed in  his  letter  to  Bishop  White  before  the  meeting  of 
the  Convention  of  1789,  and  are  also  with  great  fairness  de- 
scribed by  Bishop  White  in  his  account  of  the  meeting  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  in  that  year.^^  The  following  extract  from 
the  letter  will  serve  the  present  purpose : 

"  Was  it  not  that  it  would  run  this  letter  to  an  unreasonable 
length,  I  would  take  the  liberty  to  mention  at  large  the  ob- 
jections that  have  been  here  made  to  the  Prayer  Book  pub- 
lished at  Philadelphia.  I  will  confine  myself  to  a  few,  and 
even  these  I  should  not  mention  but  from  a  hope  they  will  be 
obviated  by  your  Convention.  The  mutilating  the  Psalms  is 
supposed  to  be  an  unwarrantable  liberty,  and  such  as  was 
never  before  taken  with  Holy  Scripture  by  any  Church.  It 
destroys  that  beautiful  chain  of  Prophecy  that  runs  thro'  them, 
and  turns  their  application  from  Messiah  and  the  Church,  to 
the  temporal  state  and  concerns  of  individuals.  By  discard- 
ing the  word  Absolution,  and  making  no  mention  of  Regenera- 
tion in  Baptism,  you  appear  to  give  up  those  points,  and  to 
open  the  door  to  error  and  delusion. 

The  excluding  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creed  has 
alarm^ed  the  steady  friends  of  our  Church ;  lest  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  divinity  should  go  out  with  them.     If  the  doctrine  of 

10.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  pp.  149-153. 


MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

these  Creeds  be  offensive,  we  are  sorry  for  it,  and  shall  hold 
ourselves  so  much  the  more  bound  to  retain  them.  If  what 
are  called  the  damnatory  clauses  in  the  latter  be  the  objection 
—  cannot  those  clauses  be  supported  by  Holy  Scripture? 
Whether  they  can,  or  cannot  —  why  not  discard  those  clauses 
and  retain  the  doctrinal  part  of  the  Creed?  The  leaving  out 
the  descent  into  Hell  from  the  Apostles  Creed  seems  to  be  of 
dangerous  consequence.  Have  we  a  right  to  alter  the  analogy 
of  Faith  handed  down  to  us  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church? 
And  if  we  do  alter  it,  how  will  it  appear  that  we  are  the  same 
Church  which  subsisted  in  primitive  times?  The  article  of 
the  descent  I  suppose  was  put  into  the  Creed  to  ascertain 
Christ's  perfect  humanity  —  that  he  had  a  human  soul  —  in 
opposition  to  those  heretics  who  denied  it,  and  affirmed  that 
his  body  was  actuated  by  the  divinity.  For  if  when  he  died 
and  his  body  was  laid  in  the  grave,  his  soul  went  to  the  re- 
ceptacle of  departed  spirits,  then  he  had  a  human  soul  as  well 
as  body,  and  was  very  and  perfect  man.  The  Apostles  Creed 
seems  to  have  been  the  Creed  of  the  Western  Church,  the 
Nicene  of  the  Eastern,  and  the  Athanasian  to  be  designed  to 
ascertain  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  against  all  op- 
posers.  And  it  always  appeared  to  me  that  the  design  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  retaining  the  three  Creeds  was,  to  show 
that  she  did  retain  the  analogy  of  the  Catholic  Faith  in  com- 
mon with  the  Eastern  and  Western  Church,  and  in  opposition 
to  those  who  denied  the  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Unity  of  the 
Divine  essence.  Why  any  departure  should  be  made  from 
this  good  and  pious  example  I  am  yet  to  seek. 

There  seems  in  your  book  a  dissonance  between  the  offices 
of  Baptism  and  Confirmation.  In  the  latter  there  is  a  renewal 
of  a  vow  which  in  the  former  does  not  appear  to  have  been  ex- 
plicitly made.  Something  of  the  same  discordance  appears 
in  the  Catechism. 


THE   BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  333' 

Our  regard  for  primitive  practice  makes  us  exceedingly 
grieved  that  you  have  not  absolutely  retained  the  sign  of  the 
cross  in  Baptism.  When  I  consider  the  practice  of  the  an- 
cient Church  before  Popery  had  a  being,  I  cannot  think  the 
Church  of  England  justifiable  in  giving  up  the  sign  of  the 
Cross  where  it  was  retained  by  the  first  prayer  book  of  Ed- 
ward the  6*^^  Her  motive  may  have  been  good,  but  good 
motives  will  not  justify  wrong  actions.  .  .  .  And  in  the 
Burial  Office  the  hope  of  a  future  Resurrection  to  eternal  life 
is  too  faintly  expressed.  And  the  acknowledgment  of  an  in- 
termediate State  between  death  and  the  resurrection  seems  to 
be  entirely  thrown  out,  tho'  that  this  was  a  Catholic,  primitive 
and  Apostolical  doctrine  will  be  denied  by  none  who  attend 
to  the  point."^^ 

These  strictures  upon  the  Proposed  Book  are  given,  as 
already  observed,  to  show  the  mind  of  their  author  upon  the 
points  to  which  they  relate;  and  not  as  claiming  that  his  in- 
fluence was  the  cause  of  preserving  the  Prayer  Book  of  1789 
from  the  errors  in  the  Proposed  Book  which  were  thus  indi- 
cated. As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  none  of  the  objections 
here  made  appear  to  be  applicable  to  the  American  Book,  ex- 
cept that  of  leaving  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  Baptism  optional, 
and  that  of  the  omission  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  The  criti- 
cism in  reference  to  the  Psalter  is  only  in  part  applicable, 
since  the  regular  reading  of  the  Psalter  was  retained  as  in 
the  English  Book,  with  the  permissive  substitution  of  selec- 
tions to  be  used  at  the  discretion  of  the  Minister. 

The  accomplishment  of  the  change  in  the  Prayer  of  Con- 
secration in  the  Communion  service,  to  which  reference  has 
been  made,  was  a  matter  which  Bishop  White  says  *'  lay  very 
near  to  the  heart  of  Bishop  Seabury."     In  the  letter  to  Bishop 

II.  Manuscript  Letter  Book. 


334  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

White  which  comments  upon  the  departures  of  the  Proposed 
Book  from  the  EngHsh  Prayer  Book,  Bishop  Seabury  refers 
to  the  one  particular  in  which  he  conceives  that  the  EngHsh 
Book  itself  ought  to  be  amended,  in  the  following  words : 

"  That  the  only  exceptionable  part  of  the  English  book  is 
the  Communion  office  may  be  proved  by  a  number  of  very  res- 
pectable names  among  the  Clergy  of  the  last  and  present  cen- 
tury. The  grand  fault  in  that  office  is  the  deficiency  of  a 
more  formal  oblation  of  the  Elements,  and  of  the  invocation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  sanctify  and  bless  them.  The  Conse- 
cration is  made  to  consist  merely  in  the  Priest's  laying  his 
hand  on  the  Elements  and  pronouncing  This  is  my  body  etc: 
which  words  are  not  consecratory  at  all  —  nor  were  they  ad- 
dressed by  Christ  to  the  Father  —  but  were  declarative  to  the 
Apostles.  This  is  so  exactly  symbolizing  with  the  Church  of 
Rome  in  an  error,  an  error  too  on  which  the  absurdity  of 
Transubstantiation  is  built,  that  nothing  but  having  fallen 
into  the  same  error  themselves  could  have  prevented  the 
enemies  of  the  Church  from  casting  it  in  her  teeth.  The  ef- 
ficacy of  Baptism,  of  Confirmation,  of  Orders,  is  ascribed  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  his  energy  is  implored  for  that  purpose; 
and  why  he  should  not  be  invoked  in  the  Consecration  of  the 
Eucharist,  to  make  the  elements  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
in  power  and  effect,  especially  as  all  the  old  Liturgies  are  full 
to  the  point,  I  cannot  conceive.  It  is  much  easier  to  account 
for  the  Alterations  of  the  first  Liturgy  of  Edward  6*^,  than  to 
justify  them;  and  as  I  have  been  told  there  is  a  vote  on  the 
minutes  of  your  Convention  —  Anno  1786  I  believe,  for  the 
revision  of  this  matter,  I  hope  it  will  be  taken  up,  and  that 
God  will  raise  up  some  able  and  worthy  advocate  for  this 
primitive  practice;  and  make  you  and  the  Convention  the  in- 
struments of  restoring  it  to  his  Church  in  America.  It  would 
do  you  more  honor  in  the  world,  and  contribute  more  to  the 
union  of  the  Churches  than  any  other  alterations  you  can  make, 


THE   BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  '     335 

and  would  restore  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  its  ancient  dignity 
and  efficacy."  ^- 

"  These  sentiments,"  says  Bishop  White,  speaking  of  Bishop 
Seabury's  views  of  the  deficiencies  of  the  English  prayer,  "  he 
had  adopted,  in  his  visit  to  the  bishops  from  whom  he  received 
his  Episcopacy."  ^^  Sufficient  evidence  has  been  given  in  an 
earlier  chapter  of  these  memoirs  to  show  that  the  sentiments 
of  Bishop  Seabury  on  tliis  subject  were  the  same  which  he  had 
entertained  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry.  But,  of 
course,  the  change  in  his  position,  and  his  membership  in  the 
House  of  Bishops,  combined  with  the  understanding  and  agree- 
ment which  he  had  had  with  his  Consecrators,  gave  to  his 
sentiments  a  more  practical  turn,  and  led  to  the  earnest  effort 
to  have  the  principles  which  he  held  attain  their  due^recogni- 
tion  in  the  formularies  now  being  prepared  for  the  use  of  the 
Church. 

The  fifth  Article  of  the  Concordate  executed,  November  15, 
1784,  by  the  Scottish  Bishops,  who  had  consecrated  him  on  the 
day  previous,  and  by  Bishop  Seabury  himself,  shows  the  na- 
ture of  his  agreement  with  them  as  to  the  Eucharistic  service, 
and  is  as  follows: 

"  Art.  V.  As  the  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  or  the 
Administration  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  is  the  principal  Bond  of  Union  among  Christians,  as 
well  as  the  most  solemn  Act  of  Worship  in  the  Christian 
Church,  the  Bishops  aforesaid  agree  in  desiring  that  there  may 
be  as  little  Variance  here  as  possible;  and  tho'  the  Scottish 
Bishops  are  very  far  from  prescribing  to  their  Brethren  in  this 
matter,  they  cannot  help  ardently  wishing  that  Bishop  Sea- 
bury would  endeavour  all  he  can,  consistently  with  peace  and 
prudence,  to  make  the  Celebration  of  this  venerable  Mystery 
conformable  to  the  most  primitive  Doctrine  and  Practice  in 

12,  Manuscript  Letter  Book. 

13.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  155. 


336  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

that  respect :  Which  is  the  pattern  the  Church  of  Scotland  has 
copied  after  in  her  Communion  Office,  and  which  it  has  been 
the  Wish  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  Divines  of  the  Church 
of  Eng-land,  that  she  also  had  more  closely  followed  than  she 
seems  to  have  done  since  she  gave  up  her  first  reformed  Lit- 
urgy, used  in  the  Reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,  between  which, 
and  the  form  used  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  there  is  no  Dif- 
ference in  any  point,  which  the  primitive  Church  reckoned  es- 
sential to  the  right  ministration  of  the  holy  Eucharist.  In  this 
capital  Article  therefore  of  the  Eucharistic  Service,  in  which 
the  Scottish  Bishops  so  earnestly  wish  for  as  much  Unity  as 
possible,  Bishop  Seabury  also  agrees  to  take  a  serious  View  of 
the  Communion  Office  recommended  by  them,  and  if  found 
agreeable  to  the  genuine  Standards  of  Antiquity,  to  give  his 
Sanction  to  it,  and  by  gentle  Methods  of  Argument  and  Per- 
suasion, to  endeavour,  as  they  have  done,  to  introduce  it  by 
degrees  into  practice,  without  the  Compulsion  of  Authority  on 
the  one  side,  or  the  prejudice  of  former  Custom  on  the  other." 

The  last  sentence  of  the  paragraph  quoted  may  seem  at  first 
to  imply  that  Bishop  Seabury  was  undertaking  to  enter  upon 
the  consideration  of  the  doctrine  involved  in  the  practice  rec- 
ommended, as  if  it  had  been  previously  unfamiliar  to  him :  but 
upon  attention  it  will  appear  that  it  was  not  the  doctrine  which 
he  agreed  to  compare  with  that  of  the  standards  of  Antiquity, 
but  the  Communion  Office  of  the  Scottish  Church  which  he 
undertook  to  compare  with  those  standards.  It  might  very 
well  have  been  that  he  should  be  familiar  with  the  doctrine, 
and  yet  not  entirely  so  with  the  Scottish  formularies ;  and  in- 
deed an  imperfection  in  such  information  would  not  be  alto- 
gether surprising;  for  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Scottish  Church 
have  made  its  Liturgical,  as  well  as  its  other  history  somewhat 
complicated. 

The  temporary  deprivation  of  its  Episcopate  which  the  Scot- 
tish Church  suffered,  must  have  greatly  impaired  the  unity  of 


THE    BOOK    OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  337 

its  liturgical  traditions:  and,  in  respect  of  practice,  it  is  prob- 
able that  (as  when  there  was  no  King  in  Israel),  every  man 
did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes.  So  that  not  only 
was  there  for  a  considerable  period  no  liturgical  form  consid- 
ered as  obligatory,  but  prayers,  and  even  communions  were 
commonly  rendered  in  extemporary  words.^^  Still  it  has  been 
said  that  since  the  Reformation  there  had  been  recognized  in 
Scotland  the  English  Prayer  Book  of  1552,  though  this  would 
seem  to  have  been  largely  displaced  by  Knox's  Book  of  Com- 
mon Order,  which  the  Church  Assemblies  at  different  times 
unsuccessfully  tried  to  revise.  The  first  Scottish  Prayer  Book 
was  that  published  in  1637,  under  the  direction  of  Charles  I, 
and  commonly  attributed  to  Archbishop  Laud,  though  it  was 
prepared  in  Scotland;  its  chief  compilers  being  Bishops  Max- 
well of  Ross,  and  Wedderburn  of  Dunblane,  and  Laud's  rela- 
tion to  it  appearing  to  have  been  only  in  the  way  of  preliminary 
suggestion  and  subsequent  revision.  The  Book  was  used  on 
one  Sunday  only,  and  withdrawn ;  though  the  real  offence  of  it, 
which  led  to  riots  in  many  Churches,  seems  to  have  lain  not 
so  much  in  its  contents,  as  in  the  manner  of  its  imposition,  in- 
troduced as  it  had  been  by  royal  proclamation  at  the  Market 
Crosses  of  Scotland,  instead  of  by  the  authorized  Courts  of 
the  Church.^^ 

The  chief  variations  of  this  Book  from  the  English  Book 
which  was  then  in  use  appear  to  have  been  in  the  closer  con- 
formity of  its  Communion  Office  to  that  of  the  first  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  VL :  and  although  the  Book  was  immediately 
withdrawn,  yet  its  Communion  Office  served  to  some  extent  as 
the  model  for  subsequent  Communion  Offices  among  both  the 

14.  Bishop  Dowden's  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office,  pp.  43, 
52. 

15.  See  a  Short  History  of  the  Church  in  Scotland  by  the  Rev. 
Anthony  Mitchell,  B.  D.,  Principal  of  the  Episcopal  Theological  Col- 
lege in  Edinburgh  —  p.  TJ. 


33^  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Scottish  and  English  non-jurors.  Of  these  there  were  several ; 
but  the  one  which  was  in  use  in  Scotland  at  the  time  of  the 
Concordate,  and  recognized  as  the  Standard  Edition,  was  that 
which  was  published  in  1764;  and  this  has  continued  substan- 
tially unchanged  in  the  worship  of  the  Scottish  Church  to  the 
present  time,  although  of  late  years  made  an  alternate  use 
with  the  English  Office.  From  this  Office  of  1764,  was  taken, 
with  some  slight  variations,  the  Communion  Office  which 
Bishop  Seabury  recommended  to  the  Episcopal  Congregations 
in  Connecticut  in  1786,  and  which  was  in  general  use  among 
them  until  the  adoption  of  the  American  Prayer  Book  in 
i789.^« 

This  Book  of  1789,  while  it  is  in  the  main,  with  certain 
amendments,  a  reproduction  of  the  English  Book  which  had 
been  previously  in  use  in  the  Colonies,  embodies  in  full  the 
Prayer  of  Consecration  as  it  stood  in  Bishop  Seabury's  Com- 
munion Office,  making  that  prayer  a  substitute  for  the  Prayer 
in  the  English  Book.  The  only  differences  between  the  Prayer 
as  embodied  in  the  American  Liturgy,  and  the  Prayer  as  it 
stood  in  Bishop  Seabury's  Office,  were  that  the  words  ''  lively 
Sacrifice  "  in  the  latter  were  changed  to  "  living  Sacrifice  "  in 
the  former ;  and  that  the  words  "  that  they  may  become  the 
body  and  blood  of  thy  most  dearly  beloved  Son,"  used  by 
Bishop  Seabury,  were  omitted,  and  there  were  substituted  for 
them  the  words  "  that  we,  receiving  them  according  to  thy  Son 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ's  holy  institution,  in  remembrance  of 
his  death  and  passion,  may  be  partakers  of  his  most  blessed 
Body  and  Blood." 

16.  See  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hart's  Facsimile  Reprint  of  Bishop  Seabury's 
Communion  Office,  with  Historical  Sketch  and  Notes  (Thomas  Whit- 
taker,  New  York,  1883),  particularly  pp.  34,  35,  36,  40.  4i,  and  54-6o. 
Bishop  Dowden,  not  claiming  "  synodical  sanction "  for  the  office  of 
1764,  says  "  Its  text  is  rightly  regarded  as  presenting  the  recognized 
Scottish  Communion  Office  —  substantially  the  textus  reccptus  ab  om- 
nibus."—  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office,  pp.  98,  99. 


THE   BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  339 

This  latter  change  was  probably  owmg,  as  Dr.  Hart  ob- 
serves, to  the  influence  of  the  delegation  from  Maryland:  an 
inference  which  is  based  upon  an  account  of  proceedings  in  a 
Maryland  Convention  given  in  1786  by  Dr.  William  Smith, 
one  of  the  Representatives  of  Maryland  in  the  General  Con- 
vention of  1789.  Writing  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  in 
Boston,  Dr.  Smith  says  that  the  Maryland  Convention,  hav- 
ing the  "  Proposed  Book  "  under  consideration,  had  decided 
to  recommend  "  an  addition  to  the  Consecration  Prayer,  in 
the  Holy  Communion,  something  analogous  to  that  of  the 
Liturgy  of  Edward  VI,  and  the  Scots'  Liturgy,  invoking  a 
blessing  on  the  Elements  of  Bread  and  Wine,"  changing  the 
prayer  "  that  they  may  become  the  body  and  blood,  etc."  to 
"  that  we  receiving  the  same,  according  to  Thy  Son,  Our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ's  holy  Institution  etc."  ^^ 

The  Prayer  thus  adopted  in  1789  has  continued  unchanged 
in  the  American  use  to  the  present  time,  except  for  one  altera- 
tion made  in  late  years.  The  Scotch  Office,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  Consecration  Prayer,  had  the  words  "  Whosoever  shall 
be  partakers  .  .  .may  be  .  .  .  made  one  body  with 
him,  that  he  may  dwell  in  them,  and  they  in  him."  Bishop 
Seabury  substituted  for  the  word  "  whosoever,"  the  words 
**  we  and  all  others,"  a  change  from  the  third  person  to  the 
first  person,  which  ought  to  have  been  followed  by  a  similar 
change  in  the  pronouns  at  the  end  of  the  sentence ;  so  that  the 
words  "  he  may  dwell  in  them,  and  they  in  him  "  should  have 
read  he  may  dwell  in  us,  and  we  in  him.  The  need  of  this 
change  was  inadvertently  overlooked,  apparently  both  by 
Bishop  Seabury  and  by  the  Convention  of  1789,  and  was  not 
recognized  authoritatively  until  recently,  when  the  sentence 
was  put  into  its  present  form,  reading :  *'  We  and  all  others 
.     .     .     that  he  may  dwell  in  us,  and  we  in  him."  ^^ 

17.  Hart's  Bishop  Seabury's  Communion  Office,  pp.  45,  46. 

18.  Ibid.,  p.  56.    Dr.  Hart's  account  of  the  inadvertence,  however, 


340  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

The  difference  between  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  which 
was  laid  aside  in  the  adoption  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1789,  and 
the  Prayer  which  was  then  substituted  for  it,  may  of  course 
be  readily  seen  by  comparing  the  two  forms  as  they  respec- 
tively appear  in  the  English  and  American  Books.  Briefly, 
perhaps,  it  can  best  be  described  by  saying  that  the  English 
Prayer,  after  ascribing  to  the  mercy  of  the  Father  the  gift  of 
His  Son  to  suffer  death  for  our  redemption,  and  desiring  of 
the  Father  that  we  receiving  the  bread  and  wine  according  to 
Christ's  institution,  in  remembrance  of  His  death  and  passion, 
may  be  partakers  of  His  Body  and  Blood ;  repeats  the  words 
used  by  Christ  at  the  last  Supper,  and  there  concludes :  while 
the  American  Prayer,  ascribing  glory  to  God  the  Father  for 
the  gift  of  His  Son  to  suffer  death  for  our  redemption,  and 
repeating,  as  in  the  English  Prayer,  the  words  used  by  Christ 
at  the  last  Supper,  does  not  there  conclude ;  but  goes  on  to  say 
that,  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ  we  do  celebrate 
and  make  before  the  Father,  with  the  holy  gifts  which  we  now 
offer  to  Him,  the  memorial  which  the  Son  hath  commanded 
us  to  make ;  and  adds  to  this  the  supplication  that  the  Father 
will  vouchsafe  to  bless  and  sanctify  with  His  Word  and  Holy 
Spirit  the  gifts  and  creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  that  we, 
receiving  them  according  to  Christ's  institution,  in  remem- 
brance of  His  death  and  passion  may  be  partakers  of  His 
Body  and  Blood;  and  then,  with  the  earnest  desire  that  God 
will  accept  this  Sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  and  grant 
remission  of  our  sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  Christ's  passion ; 
with  the  offering  of  ourselves  as  a  living  sacrifice ;  and  with 
petitions  for  ourselves  and  others  for  the  worthy  reception  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  for  consequent  unity  with 

has,  by  a  singular  mishap,  transposed  the  quotations:  attributing  the 
use  of  the  word  "whosoever"  to  Bishop  Seabury  instead  of  to  the 
Scottish  Office. 


THE    COOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  34I 

Christ,  concludes  with  the  ascription  of  glory  to  the  Father  by 
and  with  Jesus  Christ  in  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  both  prayers  there  are  used  by  the  Priest,  in  connection 
with  the  words  of  our  Lord  at  the  Institution  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, the  acts,  also  performed  by  Him  at  that  Institution,  of 
the  breaking  of  the  Bread  and  of  the  taking  of  the  Cup  into 
the  hands :  but  in  respect  of  the  acts  of  blessing  and  giving 
thanks  attributed  to  Christ  in  the  scriptural  account  of  the 
Institution,  and  presumably  included  in  His  command  to  do 
that  which  He  had  done,  there  is  no  explicit  evidence  of  obe- 
dience in  the  English  Prayer;  whereas,  in  the  American 
Prayer,  after  the  solemn  rendering  of  most  hearty  thanks  for 
the  innumerable  benefits  procured  by  the  Offering  of  Christ 
now  commemorated,  there  is  the  distinct  supplication  by  the 
Priest  that  the  elements,  used  according  to  Christ's  command, 
may  be  blessed  and  sanctified  to  the  end  for  which  that  use 
had  been  commanded. 

Viewed  as  the  expression  of  the  intent  of  the  Church  to  do, 
in  obedience  to  Christ's  command,  that  which  He  had  done  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  Supper  which  followed  the  offering  of 
the  Passover  then  being  fulfilled  by  Him  in  the  solemn  Obla- 
tion of  Himself  about  to  be  consummated  on  the  Cross,  it 
would  appear  that  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  which  we  are 
considering  makes,  in  the  use  of  Christ's  words  and  acts  at 
the  Paschal  Supper,  the  solemn  oblation  of  the  elements  of 
Bread  and  Wine  both  in  their  natural,  or  material,  capacity, 
and  in  their  designated,  or  symbolical,  capacity  as  appointed 
by  Christ  to  be  the  means  of  the  Offering  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  His  Sacrifice  to  the  Father;  that  upon  these  Holy 
Gifts  thus  offered  to  the  Father  it  invokes  the  blessing  of  the 
Word  and  Holy  Spirit,  that  through  the  efficacy  of  that  bless- 
ing upon  them,  we  may,  receiving  them  as  by  Christ's  institu- 
tion we  were  to  receive  them,  be  partakers  of  His  Body  and 
Blood. 


342  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

So  understood,  it  would  seem  that  this  Prayer  expresses 
what  is  conformable  to  the  general  character  of  Sacrifice  in  the 
religious  usage  of  the  world  —  wherein  that  which  is  solemnly 
offered  to  God,  is  reverently  received  back  from  Him  as  fitted 
by  His  benediction  for  the  refreshment  of  those  who  offer ; 
and  that  it  is  also  in  close  analogy  with  the  most  primitive 
and  catholic  conception  of  the  Christian  Sacrifice.  For,  in 
that  conception  there  is  presented  to  the  Father,  by  the  offer- 
ing of  the  elements  of  Christ's  appointment  for  that  purpose, 
the  Sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Christ;  and  that  which  is  thus 
offered  to  the  Father  is  by  the  operation  of  His  Holy  Spirit 
enabled  to  impart  to  us  the  benefit  of  that  Sacrifice :  So  that, 
that  which  in  the  mystery,  or  significance  of  Christ's  appoint- 
ment is  offered  to  the  Father,  is,  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  in 
the  same  mystery,  or  significance,  returned  to  us  for  our  re- 
freshment. 

The  frequent  references  to  the  fact  that  this  Prayer  is  in 
closer  conformity  to  the  Reformed  Liturgy  in  the  first  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  VI.  than  the  subsequent  Liturgies  of  the 
Church  of  England  have  maintained,  make  it  necessary  to 
point  out,  what  has  been  often  overlooked,  that  there  is  an 
important  difference  between  the  Prayer  as  we  now  have  it, 
and  the  corresponding  Prayer  in  the  first  book  of  Edward. 
The  substance  of  both  as  to  the  main  matter  is  the  same,  but 
the  order  in  which  the  matter  is  presented  is  different;  and 
the  difference  is  of  great  significance,  as  showing  that  the 
later  usage,  which  has  been  derived  into  the  American  Liturgy 
from  the  Scotch,  is  in  closer  conformity  to  primitive  models, 
than  could  be  expected  to  be  found  in  the  work  of  Reform- 
ers not  yet  entirely  freed  from  the  confusing  Roman  tradition 
which  they  were  trying  to  correct. 

Dr.  Hart  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  most  essen- 
tial part  of  the  Communion  service,  the  prayer  of  Consecration. 
Stephen's  second  Liturgy,  the  Non- jurors'  Book,  the  Scotch 


THE    BOOK   OF   COMMON    PRAYER.  343 

services  since  1755,  Bishop  Seabury's  Office,  and  the  present 
American  book  differ  from  all  other  Communion  Offices  in 
the  English  language,  in  placing  the  words  of  Institution,  the 
Oblation,  and  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  order 
in  which  they  are  to  be  found  in  all  the  ancient  Liturgies ;  and 
he  observes  that  the  first  reformed  Prayer  Book,  of  1549,  fol- 
lowed the  order  of  the  Roman  Liturgy  in  placing  the  words  of 
Institution  in  an  abnormal  position,  after  the  Invocation,  and 
before  the  Oblation:  an  arrangement  which  was  changed  in 
the  revision  of  1552  by  the  entire  omission  of  the  Oblation, 
and  of  all  mention  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  what  corresponded  to 
the  Invocation  previously  used  —  a  form  still  retained  in  the 
English  Office.  Whereas  the  Non-jurors  book,  taking  the 
words  of  the  Clementine  Liturgy,  took  also  the  primitive  or- 
der; and  the  Scotch  Bishops,  in  framing  the  services  from 
which  Bishop  Seabury  took  his  Office,  to  which  we  are  in- 
debted for  our  American  prayer,  though  they  used  the  words 
of  the  book  of  1549,  changed  their  order  to  agree  with  the 
primitive  custom.^^ 

In  speaking  of  the  "  Invocation  "  in  the  Roman  Canon,  I 
understand  Dr.  Hart  to  refer,  not  to  the  specific  Invocation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  to  the  prayer  for  the  benediction  of  the 
Oblation  which  precedes  the  words  of  Institution  in  that 
Canon.  "  The  Roman  Liturgy,"  remarks  Bishop  Dowden, 
"  does  not  possess  in  the  Canon,  an  express  Invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;"  although,  as  he  further  observes,  "  it  does  pos- 
sess in  the  Canon,  what  the  present  English  Liturgy  does  not, 
an  express  prayer  for  God's  blessing  upon  the  bread  and 
wine."  ^^  And  Bishop  Brett,  after  citing  Greek  and  Eastern 
Liturgies  on  the  point  of  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
makes  the  following  interesting  and  suggestive  comments: 

"  But  the  Roman  Canon,  contrary  to  all  others,  does  not 

19.  Hart's  Reprint  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Office,  pp.  60-63. 

20.  Dowden's  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office,  p.  206. 


344  MEMOIR   OF    IJiSllOP    SEADURY. 

invocate  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  however  it  prays  for 
God's  particular  blessing-  upon  the  elements,  and  that  he  would 
make  them  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  much  to 
the  same  effect;  .  .  .  since  the  spiritual  blessings  of  God 
are  all  conferred  upon  us  by  the  operation  of  his  Holy  Spirit. 
And  the  Roman  Missal  prays  thus :  '  Which  Oblation  we  be- 
seech thee,  O  God,  that  thou  wilt  vouchsafe  to  make  in  all 
respects  blessed,  firm,  valid,  reasonable  and  acceptable,  that  it 
may  be  to  us  the  body  and  blood  of  thy  most  dearly  beloved 
son  Jesus  Christ'  But  the  first  Liturgy  of  King  Edward  VI 
has  added  the  word  Holy  Spirit  to  this  invocation,  saying, 
'  And  with  thy  Holy  Spirit  and  Word,  vouchsafe  to  bless  and 
sanctify  these  thy  gifts  and  creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  that 
they  may  be  unto  us  the  body  and  blood  of  thy  most  dearly 
beloved  son  Jesus  Christ.' 

But  in  this  the  Roman  Canon,  and  that  English  Liturgy 
which  was  made  from  it,  are  singular  and  particular,  in  that 
they  place  this  invocation  before  the  words  of  institution  and 
the  oblation  of  the  elements,  which  in  all  other  Liturgies  fol- 
lows in  the  last  place:  which  certainly  is  the  most  natural 
order,  the  Holy  Spirit  by  his  descent  completing  and  perfect- 
ing the  consecration.  It  is  certainly  most  natural  and  agree- 
able to  order,  that  we  should  first  perform  our  parts,  place 
our  gifts  upon  the  altar,  declare  that  we  do  this  in  obedience 
to  Christ's  institution,  make  our  oblation  of  them  to  God,  as 
what  he  has  appointed  to  be  the  sacramental  or  representative 
body  of  his  Son,  and  then  desire  that  the  Holy  Ghost  may 
come  down  upon  them,  to  make  them  that  body  and  blood  in 
power  and  effect,  that  by  his  gracious  operation  in  them  and 
with  them,  they  may  convey  to  us  all  the  blessings  purchased 
for  us  by  Christ."  ^^ 

This  arrangement  is,  as  Bishop  Brett  observes,  most  natu- 

21.  Brett's  Dissertation  on  Ancient  Liturgies,  pp.  224-5. 


THE    BOOK   OF    COMMON    PRAYER.  345 

ral  and  agreeable  to  order :  but  it  is  so,  only  on  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  purpose  or  object  of  the  Eucharist  is  the 
Sacrificial  offering,  which  Christ  instituted,  and  which,  ac- 
cepted by  the  Father,  is  returned  to  us  with  the  benediction  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  for  our  participation  thereof.  If,  however,  the 
purpose  or  object  of  the  Eucharist  is  to  promote  and  afford 
opportunity  for  the  worship  of  the  Sacrifice  itself,  then  the 
order  of  the  Roman  Canon  is  the  more  natural,  as  conducive 
to  that  end.  The  Sacrifice,  offered  in  the  Eucharistic  mystery, 
or  significance,  as  an  act  of  worship  to  God,  accepted  by  the 
Father,  and  blessed  by  His  Holy  Spirit  to  the  end  of  our  par- 
ticipation in  it,  is  one  thing:  the  Sacrifice,  offered,  and  as- 
sumed to  be  so  changed  by  the  act  of  God  as  that  it  becomes 
the  object  of  our  worship  is  quite  another  thing.  And  it  is 
the  latter  alternative  which  both  the  order  of  the  Roman 
Canon,  and  the  various  rubrical  directions  accompanying  it, 
professedly,  and  most  studiously  and  effectively  combine  to 
promote;  and  which  those  who  adopt  Roman  modes  of  ren- 
dering our  own  prayer  of  Consecration,  inevitably  come  under 
the  influence  of,  and  learn  to  accept  and  perpetuate. 

Hence  the  wisdom  of  the  return  of  the  American  Prayer 
of  Consecration  (through  Bishop  Seabury's  office,  and  the 
Scotch  from  which  it  was  derived),  to  the  primitive  order, 
sustained  by  a  general  consent,  in  variance  from  which  the 
Roman  usage  is,  as  Brett  remarks,  "  singular  and  particular." 
And  hence  too,  the  wuwisdom  (if  so  very  feeble  and  inade- 
quate a  word  may  be  forgiven)  of  those  who  for  the  sake  of 
promoting  the  worship  of  the  Sacrifice,  as  distinguished  from 
the  worship  of  God  by  and  through  the  Sacrifice,  are  pleased  to 
symbolize  with  the  Roman  error,  in  preference  to  the  really 
Catholic  usage  which  antedates  it;  and  thus  to  promote  not 
only  a  change  in  the  form  of  the  worship  of  God,  but  the  very 
revolution  of  that  worship,  by  making  the  Sacrifice,  which 
Christ  instituted  as  a  means  of  worship  and  of  participation  in 


346  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  benefits  of  that  worship,  itself  the  object  of  worship."- 

In  conckiding  this  Chapter,  it  may  be  matter  of  interest  to 
follow  the  process  of  the  adoption  of  the  Communion  Service 
in  the  General  Convention  of  1789,  partly  because  special 
consideration  has  here  been  given  to  that  particular  portion  of 
the  Prayer  Book,  and  partly  too,  as  evidence  of  that  "  celerity  " 
to  which  Bishop  White  has  referred.  It  appears  from  the 
Journal  of  that  year  that, 

October  3.  The  House  of  Deputies  appointed  a  Committee 
to  prepare  an  order  for  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion.—  p.  79. 

October  8.  The  House  of  Bishops  prepared  proposals  on 
the  order  for  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Communion,  p. 
88. —  which  presumably  were  sent  to  the  other  House,  and  re- 
ferred to  its  Committee  on  the  subject,  appointed  October  3. 

October  9.  The  report  of  this  Committee  was  received  by 
the  Deputies,  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table,     p.  80. 

October  10.  That  report  was  taken  up  and  considered  by 
that  House  —  p.  81. 

October  13.  The  Communion  service  was  ordered  to  be 
transcribed  and  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Bishops,    p.  82. 

October  14.  The  House  of  Bishops  received  from  the 
House  of  Deputies  a  proposed  Communion  service,  and  made 
amendments,     p.  91. 

October  14.  4  p.  m.  A  message  was  received  from  the 
Bishops  with  amendments  to  the  Communion  service  which 
they  passed  as  amended  by  the  Deputies.  The  Deputies  con- 
sidered the  Amendments,  sent  them  to  the  Bishops,  as 
amended;  and  the  service  thus  amended  was  returned  by  the 
Bishops  as  assented  to.     p.  83. 

22.  For  a  valuable  outline  of  the  progress  of  change  in  the  under- 
standing and  use  of  the  Roman  Canon  Missae,  see  chapter  IV  of  Dr. 
Gummey's  work  of  the  Consecration  of  the  Eucharist,  Philadelphia, 
1907. 


THE    COOK    OF    COMMON    PRAYER.  347 

It  would  seem  from  this  process  that  the  hope  expressed  by 
Bishop  Seabury,  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  White  above  cited,  that 
God  would  raise  up  some  able  and  worthy  advocate  of  the 
primitive  practice  who  should  make  the  Convention  the  instru- 
ment of  restoring  it  to  His  Church  in  America,  was  realized. 
It  is  noticeable  that  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
moves  in  the  matter  earlier  than  the  House  of  Bishops;  and 
that  it  is  the  office  which  that  House  prepared  (with  that  pro- 
posed by  the  House  of  Bishops  before  it)  which,  upon  amend- 
ment by  the  Bishops,  is  adopted  as  the  act  of  the  Convention. 

In  giving  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  General 
Convention  of  1789,  in  the  adoption  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  Bishop  White  remarks  that  "  In  the  service  for  the 
administration  of  the  holy  communion;  it  may  perhaps  be 
expected,  that  the  great  change  made,  in  restoring  to  the  con- 
secration prayer  the  oblatory  words  and  the  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  left  out  in  King  Edward's  reign,  must  have  pro- 
duced an  opposition.  But  no  such  thing  happened  to  any 
considerable  extent;  or  at  least,  the  author  did  not  hear  of 
any  in  the  other  house,  further  than  a  disposition  to  the  effect 
in  a  few  gentlemen,  which  was  counteracted  by  some  pertinent 
remarks  of  the  president."  ^^ 

The  president  of  the  lower  House  was  the  Rev^.  Dr.  Wil- 
liam Smith,  the  same  whose  letter  from  Maryland  in  1786 
had  suggested  an  approach  to  the  form  of  the  Scots'  Liturgy; 
and  who,  as  a  Scotchman  by  birth  (although  ordained  Deacon 
and  Priest  at  the  same  time  with  Bishop  Seabury)  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  had  some  early  associations  with  that  Liturgy. 
He  it  was  who  had  in  the  previous  session  drafted  and  moved 
the  resolutions  of  invitation  to  the  representatives  of  Con- 
necticut and  other  Eastern  Churches  to  meet  with  the  Con- 
vention for  the  purposes  of  union;  who  had  been  in  corre- 

23.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  154. 


348  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

spondcnce  with  Bishop  Scabury  since  1785,  and  who  received 
him  as  his  guest  in  Phihidclphia  during  this  session  of  the 
Convention.  It  was  natural,  under  all  the  circumstances,  that 
his  influence  in  the  lower  House  should  be,  as  it  is  known  that 
it  was,  in  support  of  the  changes  in  the  Prayer  which  Bishop 
White  mentions :  and  the  story  is  that  when  some  in  that 
House  showed  a  disposition  to  object  to  the  Prayer  under 
consideration,  he,  for  their  better  information,  read  the  Prayer 
in  the  House,  and  that  in  so  impressive  a  manner  as  wholly 
to  disarm  the  prejudice  of  the  objectors;  and  the  adoption  of 
the  Prayer  took  place  without  further  demur,-*  So  that  evi- 
dently his  influence  was  of  great  aid  to  Bishop  Seabury  in  the 
effort,  which  he  had  so  long  and  so  earnestly  and  effectively 
prosecuted,  to  restore  "the  Holy  Eucharist  to  its  ancient  dig- 
nity and  efficacy,"  and  "  to  make  the  celebration  of  this  ven- 
erable mystery  conformable  to  the  most  primitive  doctrine 
and  practice." 

24.  Dr.  Hart's  Reprint  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Office,  pp.  44,  45. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

CONCERNING  PREROGATIVE. 

1 786- 1 792. 

THE  course  of  the  narrative  has  brought  me  to  the 
account  of  some  matters  which  seem  to  lend  them- 
selves to  a  grouping  around  the  idea  of  preroga- 
tive ;  and,  objectionable  as  are  the  associations  of  that  word 
in  many  minds,  I  can  think  of  no  other  which  will  better  serve 
the  purpose  in  hand.  After  all,  however,  prerogative  is  but 
an  exclusive  or  peculiar  privilege ;  and  although  many  in  high 
place  both  in  the  past  and  in  the  present  have  made  and  are 
making  an  evil  use  of  such  privilege,  yet  no  man  who  consid- 
ers his  own  sense  of  honor,  his  own  consciousness  of  love, 
his  own  inward  appreciation  of  what  is  good  and  true  and 
lofty  and  noble,  and  his  own  thankfulness  for  whatever  in  his 
own  life  tends  to  foster  these  sensibilities,  can  afford  to  say 
that  prerogative  or  privilege  is  in  itself  unworthy. 

The  subject  of  these  memoirs  appears  to  have  been  largely 
influenced  by  such  sensibilities.  He  carried  himself  always  in 
his  own  consciousness  as  in,  and  not  of  the  world;  and  while 
he  did  not  decline  the  dignities  which  were  the  attribute  of 
his  station,  nor  fail  to  assert  the  rights  which  he  conceived  to 
belong  to  that  station,  yet  he  lived  altogether  above  the  sense 
of  personal  gratification  in  these  matters,  viewing  them  simply 
as  pertaining  to  the  Episcopate  which  he  was,  according  to 
his  faith  and  judgment,  privileged  to  share.  His  attitude 
toward  the  matter  of  primacy  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and 

349 


350  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

toward  the  matter  of  his  concern  in  the  transmission  of  the 
American  succession,  seems  to  show  this  disposition  of  his 
heart  and  mind;  and,  in  a  lesser  way,  his  attitude  toward  the 
matter  of  Episcopal  habiliments  indicates  the  same  feeling  and 
principle. 

Associations  of  Bishops,  like  all  other  deliberative  bodies, 
need  a  presiding  officer;  and  not  only  has  such  a  distinction 
prevailed  in  Episcopal  Synods  and  Councils,  but  also  the  office 
created  by  the  distinction  has  been  apt  to  carry  with  it,  not 
superiority  of  Episcopal  authority,  since  all  Bishops  are  essen- 
tially equal  in  that  respect,  but  a  certain  capacity  of  repre- 
senting the  common  consent  of  the  body,  deferred  to  by  its 
individual  members.  One  of  the  most  ancient  Canons  of  the 
Church  provided  that  the  Bishops  of  every  nation  should 
know  him  who  was  chief  among  them,  and  do  nothing  of 
great  moment  without  his  consent ;  and  that  he  who  was 
Chief  should  do  nothing  without  the  consent  of  all,  that  there 
might  be  unity  of  heart.^  And  the  various  titles  of  Arch- 
bishop, Metropolitan,  Primate,  Primus,  etc.,  testify  to  the 
general  usage  of  the  Church  in  the  matter. 

With  such  precedents  before  them,  of  which  they  cannot  be 
presumed  to  have  been  ignorant,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
first  House  of  Bishops  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  consum- 
mated in  1789,  should  have  taken  care  to  make  corresponding 
provision  in  their  own  case ;  and  although  there  were  but  three 
Bishops  in  the  Country,  and  but  two  of  this  number  actually 
present  in  the  first  session  of  the  House,  the  principle  that 
the  Presidency  of  the  House  was  the  attribute  of  the  Bishop 
of  senior  consecration  was  established ;  by  reason  of  which 
Bishop  Seabury  became  the  first  Presiding  Bishop. 

To  avoid  misunderstanding,  it  is  desirable  to  observe  that 
the  title  of  Presiding  Bishop,  with  which  the  Church  was  fa- 

I.  Apostolic  Canons,  XXXIV:  Fulton's  Index  Canonum,  p.  91. 


CONCERNING    PREROGATIVE.  35 ^ 

miliar  throughout  the  19th  Century,  and  for  some  previous 
years,  was  simply  descriptive  of  the  Presidency  of  the  House 
of  Bishops.  The  Office  had  not  been  established  by  the  Con- 
stitution ;  and  the  incumbent  of  the  office  was  not  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  words,  the  Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church,  but 
was  the  Presiding  Bishop  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  The 
office  of  "  Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church  "  was  created  by 
the  Constitution  as  amended  in  1901,^  and  never  before  ex- 
isted. The  Constitution  as  amended  prior  to  that  date,  and 
several  Canons,  also  prior  to  it,  devolved  various  duties  upon 
the  Bishop  who  was  recognized  as  bearing  the  title  of  Presid- 
ing Bishop,  although  he  bore  it  without  Constitutional  or 
Canonical  authority,  and  only  by  rule  of  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops—  the  earliest  canonical  use  of  the  title  which  I  have 
observed  being  in  1799:^  but  the  office  in  itself  involved  sim- 
ply presidency  in  the  House  of  Bishops ;  and  seems  to  have 
had  one  only  other  prerogative  connected  with  it  —  that, 
namely,  of  presiding  at  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop.  The 
title  Presiding  Bishop  occurs  in  the  Rubric  before  the  Con- 
secration Office,  which  was  adopted  in  1792,*  and  first  used  in 
the  Consecration  of  Bishop  Claggett;  but  it  denotes  in  the 
Rubric,  as  it  does  later  in  Constitution  and  Canons,  an  office 
recognized  as  existing  under  the  known  rule  of  the  House  of 
Bishops,  and  owing  its  origin  to  no  other  source.  In  like 
manner  in  the  letter  of  consecration  of  Claggett,  Provoost, 
then  President  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  is  described,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Rubric,  as  Presiding  Bishop,  though  his 
signature  is  simply  "  Samuel  Provoost."  ^ 

The  first  one  of  the  Presidents  of  the  House  of  Bishops 
who  signs  himself  as  "  Presiding  Bishop  "  is  Bishop  White, 

2.  Article  I,  section  3. 

3.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  196. 

4.  Quarto  edition  of  Ordinal  by  Hugh  Gaine,  New  York,  1793. 

5.  Bioren's  Journals,  pp.  127,  128. 


352  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

in  1795;^  and  such  has  been  the  general  subsequent  usage. 
It  is  possible  that  the  association  of  this  title  with  Bishop 
White;  and  the  fact,  observable  in  looking  through  the  Jour- 
nals, that  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  used  by  either  of 
his  predecessors,  each  of  whom  signed  himself  as  President ;  "^ 
may  have  given  rise  to  the  assertion  which  has  been  some- 
times made  that  Bishop  White  was  the  first  Presiding  Bishop ; 
yet  in  fact  he  held  only  the  same  office  which  had  previously 
been  held  by  Bishop  Provoost  and  originally  by  Bishop  Sea- 
bury;  though  he  preferred  to  use  another  title,  which  was  not 
only  better  in  itself,  but  also  had,  when  he  used  it,  the  sanction 
of  Rubrical  precedent. 

It  is  a  matter  of  pleasure  and  of  interest  to  note  that  the 
action  which  made  Bishop  Seabury  the  first  to  preside  in  the 
House  of  Bishops,  also  originated  with  Bishop  White ;  whose 
account  of  the  transaction  is  as  follows: 

"  The  form  of  proceeding  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  con- 
sisting of  two  only  —  Bishop  Provoost,  although  absent,  be- 
ing considered  as  making  up  the  constitutional  number  — 
were  soon  settled.  They  were  drafted  by  the  author,  and  he 
seized  the  opportunity  of  preventing  all  discussion  at  any 
time  —  for  this  he  hoped  for  as  the  effect  —  on  the  point  of 
precedency;  by  resting  the  matter  on  the  seniority  of  Epis- 
copal consecration:  which,  of  course,  made  Bishop  Seabury 
the  President  of  the  House."  ^ 

In  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  October  5,  1789, 
the  record  of  Rules  established  for  the  government  of  the 
House  gives  the  following  as  the  first: 

"  The  Senior  Bishop  present  shall  be  the  President ;  seniority 
to  be  reckoned  from  the  dates  of  the  letters  of  consecration."  ^ 

6.  Bioren's  Journals,  pp.   127,  128. 

7.  Ibid.,  pp.  93,  127. 

8.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  p.  148. 

9.  Bioren's  Journals,  p.  87. 


CONCERNING   PREROGATIVE.  353 

The  principle  of  making  the  presidency  dependent  upon 
seniority  of  consecration,  was  questioned  at  the  next  session 
of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  a  rule  was  adopted  which  made 
the  Presidency  dependent  on  the  principle  that  it  should  be 
successive  in  the  several  members  of  the  House.  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  only  principle  in  the  new  rule;  for  the  com- 
parative proximity  to  the  North  Pole  can  hardly  be  considered 
a  principle,  so  much  as  a  providential  dispensation  for  the 
advancement  of  Bishop  Provoost,  to  which  he  interposed  no 
obstacle.  At  the  session  of  the  House  in  1792,  composed  of 
Bishops  Seabury,  White,  Provoost,  and  Madison,  "  the  first 
rule  for  the  government  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  as  agreed 
on  at  the  last  Convention  was  re-considered ; "  and  it  was 
''  Resolved,  that  the  said  rule  be  rescinded  —  that  the  follow- 
ing be  adopted  instead  thereof,  viz :  —  The  office  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  this  house  shall  be  held  in  rotation,  beginning  from 
the  North :  reference  being  had  to  the  presidency  of  this  house 
in  the  last  Convention. 

In  consequence  of  the  above  rule,  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Pro- 
voost took  the  chair."  ^^ 

Bishop  Seabury,  recording  in  his  private  Journal  some  of 
the  matters  which  took  place  at  this  session  of  General  Con- 
vention of  1792,  makes  the  following  entry  in  regard  to  the 
transfer  of  the  Presidency  of  the  Plouse  of  Bishops;  referring 
to  the  original  arrangement  in  1789,  and  to  the  change  just 
made  in  1792 : 

"  At  the  last  General  Convention  held  at  Philadelphia,  it 
was  proposed  by  Bp,  White,  and  agreed  to  by  me,  that  the 
eldest  Bp.  present  (to  be  reckoned  from  the  consecration) 
should  be  the  President  of  the  House  of  Bps.  This  agree- 
ment seemed  to  be  displeasing  to  Bps.  Provoost  and  Madison ; 
and  it  was  proposed  by  them  that  the  presidency  should  go 

10.  Bioren's  Journals,  pp.  122-3. 


354  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

by  rotation,  beginning  from  the  North.  I  had  no  inclination 
to  contend  who  should  be  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  therefore  readily  consented  to  relinquish  the 
Presidency  into  the  hands  of  Bp.  Provoost.  I  thank  God  for 
his  grace  on  this  occasion,  and  beseech  him  that  no  self  ex- 
altation, or  envy  of  others  may  ever  lead  me  into  debate  and 
contention,  but  that  I  may  ever  be  willing  to  be  the  least, 
when  the  peace  of  his  Church  requires  it.     Amen." 

The  account  which  Bishop  White  gives  of  this  transfer  is 
extremely  interesting  and  suggestive;  and  includes  also  a 
reference  to  the  question,  of  which  no  disposition  had  as  yet 
been  made,  whether  the  continuance  of  the  American  Epis- 
copate was  to  be  effected  solely  by  the  Bishops  of  English 
consecration,  or  with  the  co-operation  also  of  the  Bishop  of 
Scottish  consecration.  Bishop  White  and  Bishop  Provoost 
had  declined  to  join,  as  requested  by  General  Convention, 
with  Bishop  Seabury  in  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass,  on  the 
ground  of  the  obligation  which  they  conceived  themselves  to 
be  under  to  the  English  Bishops,  not  to  unite  in  any  Episcopal 
Consecration  until  they  had  been  supplied  with  another,  or 
third  Bishop  of  English  consecration.  This  third  Bishop  was 
present  in  the  person  of  Dr.  Madison  of  Virginia;  and  the 
election  of  the  Rev"^.  Dr.  Thomas  John  Claggett  to  be  Bishop 
of  Maryland,  and  the  application  for  his  consecration  to  that 
Office  at  the  Convention  of  1792,  made  it  necessary  that  the 
question  of  the  participants  in  that  act  of  Consecration  should 
be  decided  by  the  House  of  Bishops  at  that  session.  But  at 
the  opening  of  the  session,  when  the  displeasure  of  Bishops 
Provoost  and  Madison  at  the  rule  in  regard  to  the  Presidency 
was  manifested,  the  point  had  not  yet  been  mooted.  In  view 
of  his  past  experiences  of  Bishop  Provoost's  attitude  towards 
him,  and  with  knowledge  of  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the 
English  Bishops,  it  certainly  was  not  unnatural  that  Bishop 
Seabury  should  apprehend  that  the  displeasure  manifested  at 


CONCERNING    PREROGATIVE.  355 

his  Presidency,  might  be  only  part  of  the  larger  feeling  against 
the  consecration  by  virtue  of  which  he  had  abtained  that  Pres- 
idency ;  and  while  he  cared  little  for  the  matter  of  Presidency, 
the  matter  of  the  recognition  of  his  consecration,  and  his 
admission  on  equal  terms  with  the  other  Bishops  in  the  per- 
petuation of  that  Episcopate  which  he  had  been  the  first  to 
introduce  into  the  Country,  was  everything  to  him.  Without 
raising  any  discussion  of  the  matter  in  the  session  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  however,  which  might  have  developed 
opposition,  he  took  the  more  prudent  course  of  conferring 
with  Bishop  White  personally  upon  the  subject;  and  the  result 
was  his  waiver  of  any  claim  to  the  Presidency,  and  the  assur- 
ance that  in  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Claggett  he  should  co- 
operate with  the  other  Bishops;  all  of  which  may  more  fully 
and  at  large  appear  from  the  following  graphic  account  of  the 
venerable  and  diplomatic  Angel  of  Pennsylvania. 

"  When  the  Bishops  met  in  the  vestry-room  of  Trinity 
Church,  on  Wednesday,  the  12*^  of  September,  it  appeared 
that  Bishops  Provoost  and  Madison  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
rule  in  regard  to  the  presidency,  as  established  in  1789.  As 
the  house  were  divided  on  the  question  of  repealing  the  rule, 
it  would  have  stood.  But  this  might  have  been  construed 
into  an  ungenerous  advantage  of  the  prior  meeting;  in  which 
those  now  in  the  negative  had  voices,  and  the  others  had  none. 
The  day  passed  over  without  any  determination ;  which  was 
not  productive  of  inconvenience ;  the  morning  being  principally 
occupied  by  the  religious  service,  and  the  convention  not  meet- 
ing in  the  afternoon.  The  next  morning,  the  author  received 
a  message  from  Bishop  Seabury;  requesting  a  meeting  in 
private,  before  the  hour  of  the  convention.  It  took  place  at 
Dr.  Moore's,  where  he  lodged.  He  opened  his  mind  to  this 
effect  —  That  from  the  course  taken  by  the  two  other  bishops 
on  the  preceding  day,  he  was  afraid  they  had  in  contemplation 
the  debarring  of  him  from  any  hand  in  the  consecration,  ex- 


356  MEMOIR    OF    BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

pectcd  to  take  place  during  this  convention  —  that  he  could  not 
submit  to  this,  without  an  implied  renunciation  of  his  con- 
secration, and  contempt  cast  on  the  source  from  which  he  had 
received  it  —  and  that  the  apprehended  measure,  if  proposed 
and  persevered  in,  must  be  followed  by  an  entire  breach  with 
him,  and,  as  he  supposed,  with  the  Church  under  his  super- 
intendence. 

The  author  expressed  his  persuasion,  that  no  such  design 
was  entertained,  either  by  Bishop  Provoost  or  Bishop  Madi- 
son ;  and  his  determination,  that  if  it  were,  it  should  not  have 
his  concurrence.  He  believed  they  wished,  as  he  also  did,  to 
have  three  Bishops  present  under  the  English  consecration, 
whenever  such  an  occasion,  as  that  now  expected,  should 
occur.  The  being  united  in  the  act  with  a  bishop  who  should 
consecrate  through  another  line,  would  not  weaken  the  Eng- 
lish Chain.  In  regard  to  the  question  of  presidency,  on  which 
Bishop  Seabury  had  intimated  that  he  should  not  be  tenacious ; 
the  author  told  him,  that  his  opinion  being  the  same  as  in 
1789,  he  could  not  consistently  vote  for  the  reversal  of  the 
rule;  which,  if  it  were  done,  he  thought  had  best  be  by  the 
absence  that  morning  of  one  of  the  two  now  conversing;  and 
that  should  Bishop  Seabury  think  it  proper  in  this  way  to 
waive  his  right  under  the  rule,  the  author  pledged  himself, 
that  in  no  event  would  he  have  a  hand  in  the  ensuing  con- 
secration, if  it  were  to  be  accompanied  by  the  rejection  of 
Bishop  Seabury's  assistance  in  it;  although  there  was  still 
entertained  the  persuasion,  that  no  such  measure  would  be 
thought  of,  as  indeed  proved  to  be  the  fact.  Hands  were 
given,  in  testimony  of  mutual  consent  in  this  design.  He  ab- 
sented himself  that  morning,  and  the  rule  was  altered,  in  the 
manner  related  on  the  journal;  that  is,  for  the  presidency  to 
go  in  rotation,  beginning  from  the  North ;  which  made  Bishop 
Provoost  the  president  on  the  present  occasion."  ^^ 

J  I.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  pp.  162,  163. 


CONCERNING    PREROGATIVE.  357 

The  Presidency  of  Bishop  Provoost  devolved  upon  him  the 
right  and  duty  of  officiating  as  Presiding  Bishop  at  the  con- 
secration of  Bishop  Claggett.  He  therefore  performed  that 
function,  the  other  three  Bishops  co-operating  with  him 
therein.  So  that,  as  has  been  pointed  out  in  an  earher  chapter, 
Bishop  Claggett  derived  his  Episcopate  from  the  Bishops  of 
English  consecration,  and  from  the  Bishop  of  Scottish  con- 
secration; and  as  there  has  been  no  Bishop  of  American  con- 
secration whose  Episcopal  line  is  not  traced  through  Claggett, 
so  there  is  no  Bishop  of  American  consecration  whose  Episco- 
pal line  is  not  traced  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Scottish  Church,  as 
well  as  to  the  Bishops  of  the  English  Church.  With  no  de- 
sire to  be  Chief  in  that  first  American  Consecration,  the  possi- 
bility of  which  he  had  first  accomplished ;  and  content  with  the 
humbler  though  not  less  effective  part  of  co-operation  in  it, 
Bishop  Seabury  has  no  thought  apparently  but  one  of  gratitude 
to  God  for  the  fulfillment  at  last  of  the  great  object  of  the 
transmission  of  the  American  Episcopate;  an  object  for  which 
he  had  now  patiently  waited  for  nearly  eight  years  from  the 
time  of  his  own  consecration.  During  all  that  period  he  had 
been  perfectly  conscious  of  his  own  power  to  transmit  an  actu- 
ally valid  succession  by  his  own  single  act.  During  nearly 
five  years  of  that  period  he  had  been  conscious  of  the  neigh- 
borhood of  two  other  Bishops,  with  whose  co-operation  —  de- 
nied to  him  on  grounds  insufficient  in  his  judgment  —  a  succes- 
sion both  valid  and  canonical  might  have  been  transmitted: 
but  with  an  exalted  faith  in  God's  overruling  care  for  His 
Church,  he  denies  himself,  and  in  patience  waits  for  the  result 
of  that  Divine  care :  and  in  view  of  that  result  he  has  no  word 
to  speak  but  one  of  faith  and  gratitude. 

In  his  Journal,  on  September  20,  1792,  commenting  upon  the 
recent  Convention  he  made  this  record : 

"  At  this  Convention,  the  Right  Reverend  Dr.  Claggett  of 
Maryland  was  consecrated  a  Bishop ;  in  Trinity  Church,  by 


35^  MEMOIR    OF    CISllOl'    SEADURY. 

Bps.  Provoost,  White,  Madison,  and  Seabury.  All  Glory  be 
ascribed  to  God  for  his  goodness  to  his  Church  in  the  Ameri- 
can States.  In  his  goodness  I  confide  for  the  continuance  of 
that  holy  Episcopate  which  is  now  begun  to  be  communicated 
in  this  Country.  May  it  redound  to  his  glory,  and  the  good  of 
his  Church,  through  Jesus  Christ.     Amen."  ^- 

As  the  exigencies  of  history  constrain  us,  at  the  present 
juncture,  to  part  from  Bishop  Provoost,  whom  we  may  not 

12.  Concerning  the  relative  value  of  the  acts  of  the  Bishops  asso- 
ciated in  a  Consecration,  see  Haddan's  Apostolical  Succession  in  the 
Church  of  England,  (p.  221)  and  Seabury's  Lectures  on  Haddan's 
teaching  in  that  treatise  (pp.  62,  63,  and  ^2),  74). 

For  controversial  purposes,  both  in  the  effort  to  discredit  Parker's 
consecration  (temp.  Eliz.)  and  in  defense  of  the  Roman  succession 
in  this  country,  resting  on  the  consecration  of  Carroll  by  a  single 
Bishop,  it  may  be  convenient  to  claim  that  the  act  of  consecration 
can  only  be  the  act  of  one,  and  that  those  associated  with  him  are 
merely  witnesses  of  the  act,  contributing  nothing  to  it  The  Catholic 
rule,  however,  and  one  of  the  reasons  of  it  —  as  affording 
additional  security  for  the  actual  transmission  of  order  —  plainly  pre- 
suppose that  the  act  of  Consecration  is  the  joint  act  of  those  Bishops 
who  participate  in  it;  although,  as  matter  of  convenience,  one,  so  far 
as  the  words  are  concerned,  speaks  for  all.  The  Apostolic  Canon  says 
that  a  Bishop  is  to  ''  he  ordained  by  two  or  three  Bishops  " —  not  by 
one,  in  the  presence  of  one  or  two  others ;  and  the  common  word 
"assisting"  testifies  to  the  same  thing — for  a  witness  does  not  assist, 
but  he  who  co-operates,  or  helps  another  to  perform  an  act,  does.  It 
is  quite  true  (as  Haddan  says,  p.  263)  that  "  no  one  who  knows  of 
what  he  speaks  can  hold  consecration  by  one  to  be  invalid  " ;  but  it  is 
a  queer  specimen  of  Roman  logic  to  conclude  that  because  valid 
consecration  may  be  by  one,  therefore,  it  must  be  by  one.  Cf.  contra 
the  ruling  of  the  Roman  Canonist  Martene,  who  determines  the  en- 
quiry by  saying — that  all  the  Bishops  who  are  present  are  not  only 
witnesses  hut  also  co-operators,  is  to  he  asserted  heyond  all  shadow  of 
doubt.  (De  antiquis  Ecclesiae  Ritibus,  Lib.  I,  (Cap.  VIII,  Art.  X, 
Ord.  XVI)  :  and,  for  a  brief  account  of  the  consecration  of  Carroll, 
see  note,  pp.  129,  130,  of  Seabury's  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Ec- 
clesiastical Polity. 


CONCERNING   PREROGATIVE.  359 

meet  again,  it  seems  proper  to  record  the  fact  that  the  rela- 
tions between  him  and  Bishop  Seabury  were,  during  the  Con- 
vention of  1792  held  in  New  York,  placed  upon  a  more  agreea- 
ble footing  than  had  before  been  the  case.  What  the  personal 
acquaintance  between  them  had  been  before  that  time,  or 
whether  there  had  been  personal  acquaintance,  I  do  not  know : 
but  the  well  known  attitude  of  each  in  the  view  of  the  other 
makes  it  likely  that  neither  felt  particularly  drawn  to  the  other. 
Bishop  White,  with  his  keen  perception,  discerned  possible  in- 
conveniences resulting  from  their  mutual  aversion ;  and  with 
his  usual  tact  and  good  disposition  obviated  these  inconven- 
iences by  bringing  the  two  together.  As  he  tells  the  story, 
*'  An  unpropitious  circumstance  attended  the  opening  of  this 
convention;  but  was  happily  removed  before  proceeding  to 
business.  Bishop  Seabury  and  Bishop  Provoost  had  never, 
when  the  former  had  been  in  New  York  at  different  times 
since  his  consecration  exchanged  visits.  Although  the  author 
knows  of  no  personal  offence,  that  had  ever  passed  from  either 
of  them  to  the  other,  and  indeed  was  assured  of  the  contrary 
by  them  both;  yet  the  notoriety,  that  Bishop  Provoost  had 
denied  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  consecration,  accounted 
at  least  for  the  omission  of  the  attentions  of  a  visit  on  either 
side.  .  .  .  The  prejudices  in  the  minds  of  the  two  bishops 
were  such  as  threatened  a  distance  between  them ;  which  would 
give  an  unfavorable  appearance  to  themselves,  and  to  the 
whole  body,  and  might  perhaps  have  an  evil  influence  on  their 
deliberations.  But  it  happened  otherwise.  On  a  proposal 
being  made  to  them  by  common  friends,  and  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  present  author,  on  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Smith, 
they  consented  without  the  least  hesitation,  Bishop  Seabury  to 
pay,  and  Bishop  Provoost  to  receive  the  visit,  which  etiquette 
enjoined  on  the  former  to  the  latter;  and  was  as  readily  ac- 
cepted by  the  one,  as  it  had  been  proffered  by  the  other.  The 
author  was  present  when  it  took    place.     Bishop    Provoost 


360  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

asked  his  visitant  to  dine  with  liini  on  the  same  day,  in  company 
of  the  author  and  others.  The  invitation  was  accepted,  and 
from  that  time,  nothing  was  perceived  in  either  of  them,  which 
seemed  to  show,  that  the  former  distance  was  the  result  of 
anything  else,  but  difference  in  opinion."  ^^ 

This  laudable  observance  of  conventional  proprieties  in  re- 
spect of  social  intercourse,  may  serve  to  introduce  a  reference 
to  the  matter  of  conventional  proprieties  in  respect  of  dress; 
the  observance  of  which  in  Bishop  Seabury's  case  appears  to 
have  attracted  some  attention ;  and,  like  the  baronial  style  of 
signature  before  mentioned,  to  have  occasioned  both  amuse- 
ment and  censure,  though  such  observance  seems  to  have  re- 
sulted from  no  unworthy  motive.  It  is  natural  to  conform  to 
the  usages  of  the  society  in  which  one  lives :  but  when  one  oc- 
cupies a  position  in  which  he  is  alone  in  the  community,  it  is 
equally  natural  for  him  to  conform  to  the  conventions  applica- 
ble to  that  position,  even  though  they  may  be  different  from 
those  of  the  society  which  he  meets.  The  society  into  which 
Bishop  Seabury  returned  after  his  consecration  had  no  pro- 
vision in  its  conventions  for  the  dress  of  a  Bishop,  and  was 
therefore  amused,  or  displeased,  as  the  case  might  be,  at  the 
sight  of  that  to  which  it  was  unaccustomed.  On  his  part, 
however,  he  preferred  the  conventions  of  the  larger  society 
which  included  Bishops,  and  had  assigned  to  them  a  dress 
deemed  suitable  to  distinguish  them  from  others,  whether 
Clergymen  or  laymen.  And  so  it  probably  seemed  as  natural 
to  him  to  wear  the  usual  dress  of  a  Bishop  in  every  day  life, 
as  it  did  to  wear  the  vestments  appropriate  to  the  Episcopal 
office  in  public  ministrations.  At  any  rate  it  may  be  inferred 
from  the  following  humorous  description  of  his  appearance  in 
1786  in  the  city  of  Boston,  that  this  is  what  he  did.  In  that 
year,  some  one  in  Boston  writes  to  a  lady  in  New  York  a  letter 
containing  the  following  reference: 

13.  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  pp.  t6i,  162. 


CONCERNING   PREROGATIVE.  361 

"  I  don't  recollect  anything  else  that  is  new  to  tell  you. 

0  yes,  Miss!  We  have  a  Bishop  in  town  named  Seabury  — 
he  dresses  in  a  black  shirt  with  the  fore-flap  hanging  out,  that's 
one  suit;  at  other  times  he  appears  in  a  black  sattin  gown; 
white  sattin  sleeves,  white  belly  band,  with  a  scarlet  knapsack 
at  his  back,  and  something  resembling  a  pyramid  on  his  head. 

"  Fine  times  now !  We  can  have  our  sins  pardoned  without 
going  to  Rome  —  if  you  have  any  to  repent  of  let  me  know  for 

1  guess  you  may  obtain  absolution  by  proxy."  ^* 

It  probably  was  only  a  man  who  wrote  that  letter ;  for  one 
of  the  other  sex  would  have  known  instinctively  —  even  if  she 
had  never  before  seen  a  Bishop  —  that  the  sleeves  were  not 
"  sattin,"  and  would  perhaps  have  preferred  "  Stomacher  "  to 
the  white  —  other  thing;  but,  for  a  man,  the  writer  succeeds 
fairly  well  in  suggesting  the  Bishop's  Apron,  as  it  is  called; 
and  the  Oxford  Doctor's  hood  superinduced  upon  the  Rochet 
and  Chimere  and  lawn  sleeves  of  the  conventional  Episcopal 
Vestment. 

As  to  the  "  something  resembling  a  pyramid  on  his  head  " 
that  may  require  some  further  elucidation.  The  convention- 
alities of  the  Church  of  England  at  that  period,  did  not  call 
for  the  Mitre  as  part  of  the  usual  Episcopal  Vestment ;  but  in 
an  older  day  it  had  been  customary  to  use  it ;  and  the  circum- 
stances of  his  position  perhaps  suggested  to  Bishop  Seabury 
the  propriety  of  conforming  to  the  earlier,  rather  than  to  the 
later  usage. 

It  has  been  correctly  observed  that  St.  Paul,  in  his  first 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  makes  provision  for  two  orders  in  the 
ministry;  one  called  by  the  name  of  Bishops  (sometimes  also 
Presbyters),  and  the  other  styled  Deacons.  The  inference 
that  this  provision  contemplated  only  these  two  orders  might 

14.  For  this  extract,  copied  from  the  New  York  Packet,  April  17, 
1786  (No.  585),  I  am  indebted  to  my  friend  the  Revd.  Joseph  Hooper. 


3^2  MRMOIR    OF    r.ISIIOP    SRAP.URY. 

be  allowed,  if  it  did  not  leave  out  of  view  Timothy,  under 
whose  oversight  and  direction  St.  Paul  was  placing  these  two 
Orders,  as  sharing  with  him  the  Apostolic  office,  to  which  in 
later  usage  the  Episcopal  title  was  appropriated.  Timothy, 
however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  apparent  in  the  horizon 
of  the  Standing  Order  of  the  Congregationalists,  who  recog- 
nized no  higher  office  than  that  of  the  Presbyter.  So  it  fell 
out  that  the  representatives  of  that  persuasion  in  Connecticut, 
affected  the  title  of  Bishop,  as  claimed  to  be  synonymous  with 
Presbyter,  and  doughtily  opposed  it  to  what  were  conceived  to 
be  the  unauthorized  assumptions  of  Samuel  of  Connecticut. 
And  it  is  related  that  on  one  occasion,  when  Bishop  Seabury 
attended  a  commencement  of  Yale  College  presided  over  by  his 
old  correspondent  Dr.  Stiles,  the  suggestion  being  made  that 
he  be  invited  to  occupy  a  seat  upon  the  stage,  Dr.  Stiles  re- 
plied—  "We  are  all  Bishops  here,  but  if  there  be  room  for 
another  he  can  occupy  it."  ^''  It  is  possible,  as  has  been  said, 
that  Bishop  Seabury  adopted  the  Mitre  as  a  badge  of  office 
which  those  who  were  disposed  to  make  light  of  his  claims 
would  not  be  likely  to  imitate ;  or,  it  may,  after  all,  be  that  he 
used  the  Mitre  simply  because  it  always  had  been  in  the  usage 
of  the  Church  a  proper  part  of  the  Episcopal  Vestment;  and 
he  wished  to  observe  the  proprieties.  The  latter  supposition 
seems  to  me  more  probable,  as  being  more  characteristic  of  the 
man. 

Dr.  Beardsley  considers  that  the  first  time  of  the  using  of 
the  Mitre  was  on  the  occasion  of  the  consecration  of  the 
Church  in  New  London  which  took  place  September  20,  1787; 
and  he  sets  aside  as  due  to  a  failure  of  memory,  the  testimony 
of  an  old  Clergyman  who  said  that  he  saw  it  on  Bishop  Sea- 
bury at  his  first  ordination  in  1785.^*^  The  testimony  of  the 
letter  in  the  New  York  Packet,  however,  is  sufficiently  plain 

15.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  237. 

16.  Ibid.,  pp.  318,  319. 


CONCERNING   PREROGATIVE.  363 

to  the  fact  that  a  Mitre  was  worn  in  April,  1786,  though  it  was 
not  that  particular  Mitre  which  Dr.  Beardsley  knew,  and  which 
he  assumed  to  have  been  the  only  one  the  Bishop  had  pos- 
sessed. The  story  of  that  particular  Mitre,  I  venture  to  think 
may  be  worth  telling,  and  some  account  of  it  may  properly  con- 
clude the  chapter  concerning  prerogative. 

Writing  from  London,  September  14,  1786,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Inglis  relates  the  efforts  which  he  had  made  to  comply  with 
Bishop  Seabury's  wish  to  be  furnished  with  a  Mitre,  in  the 
following  paragraph : 

**  Agreeably  to  your  desire,  I  called  upon  Mr.  Stone  about 
the  Mitre.  As  no  Mitres  are  worn  by  our  Bishops  in  England, 
the  manufacture  of  them  is  consequently  little  known.  Neither 
Stone,  nor  any  other  person  I  could  hear  of,  had  ever  made 
one.  However,  I  told  Stone  he  must  try  his  hand.  He  and 
I  have  consulted  together  at  least  a  dozen  times ;  and  we  also 
called  in  a  very  ingenious  embroiderer  to  assist  us.  After  con- 
sulting a  variety  of  books,  cuts,  monuments,  &c  (for  no  real 
Mitre  was  to  be  found)  we  at  last  fixed  on  the  size,  materials 
and  manner  of  execution ;  all  of  which  I  hope  will  meet  your 
approbation.  The  size  I  fancy  is  large  enough.  The  materials 
are  paste-board  covered  with  black  sattin;  a  cross  in  gold  em- 
broidery, with  a  Glory  around  it  in  front;  and  a  crown  of 
thorns,  in  gold  embroidery,  on  the  back  part.  The  two  lobes, 
if  I  may  so  call  them,  lined  with  white  silk ;  and  each  pointed 
with  a  gilt  cross,  such  as  is  usual  in  the  Mitres  of  Bishops. 
The  lower  part  bound  with  a  handsome  black  lace,  and  the  in- 
side lined  with  black  thin  silk.  The  ribbons  with  which  it  ties 
down,  are  purple  and  each  pointed  with  a  bit  of  gold  lace.  My 
wish  was  to  have  it  decent  and  respectable ;  without  anything 
tawdry,  or  very  expensive  about  it.  What  the  expense  will  be 
I  know  not,  and  shall  order  the  bill  to  be  put  up  with  the 
Mitre,  by  which  you  will  learn  it  —  it  cannot  be  very  great ; 


364  MEMOIR   OF    lUSIIOP    SF.Al'.UKY. 

and  therefore  if  tliis  Mitre  does  not  please  or  fit  you,  the  next 
may  be  made  more  to  your  mind."  ^^ 

The  building  of  which  Dr.  Inglis  was  the  architect  and  which 
would  seem  to  have  been  still  in  process  of  construction  in 
September  1786  was  in  due  time  completed  and  brought  into 
use.  When  the  Mitre  reached  New  London  does  not  appear ; 
but  at  the  rate  of  progress  in  those  days  it  is  likely  enough  that 
its  arrival  was  at  least  so  far  delayed  as  that  the  consecration 
of  September  1787  should  present  the  first  suitable  occasion 
for  the  wearing  of  it.  "  The  Consecration  service,"  writes  the 
Rev^.  Ashbel  Baldwin,  "  was  amazingly  grand.  The  Bishop 
had  on  his  royal  attire.  Tlie  crown  and  Mitre  were  reful- 
gent." ^^  The  reference  is  apparently  to  the  crown  as  a  feature 
of  the  Mitre,  corresponding  to  the  description  of  Dr.  Inglis ; 
and  shows  that  the  Mitre  as  sketched  in  his  letter  had  taken 
the  place  of  that  (probably  of  domestic  manufacture)  which 
had  been  seen  in  an  earlier  stage  of  the  Episcopate.  It  was 
worn  on  special  occasions,  by  Bishop  Seabury  during  his  life ; 
and  afterwards,  remained  among  the  Bishop's  effects  in  the 
hands  of  his  son  the  Rev'^.  Charles  Seabury  who  removed 
from  New  London  to  Setauket  on  Long  Island  about  1814. 
Nearly  half  a  century  after  the  Bishop's  death  it  was  rescued 
from  the  oblivion  with  which  it  was  threatened,  by  the  interest 
of  Arthur  Cleveland  Coxe,  who  at  that  time  was  contributing 
to  *'  the  Churchman  "  the  poems  which  were  afterwards  gath- 
ered into  the  charming  collection  called  Christian  Ballads,  and 
who  applied  to  my  father,  who  was  then  editor  of  the  Church- 
man, for  information  as  to  the  fate  of  an  article,  the  signifi- 
cance of  which  had  appealed  to  his  devout  fancy.  "  Doctor," 
said  he,  ''  is  it  true  that  your  grandfather  used  to  wear  a 
Mitre  ?  "     "I  believe  it  is,"  was  the  answer.     "  Well,  have  you 

17.  Seabury  Mss, 

i8.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  p.  318. 


CONCERNING   PREROGATIVE.  365 

any  idea  what  became  of  it  ?  "  "  Why,  I  rather  think  it  is 
lying  about  the  garret  somewhere,  in  Setauket.  If  you  Hke, 
perhaps  I  can  get  it  for  you."  "  If  I  hke!  Why  the  rehc  is 
priceless!  It  ought  to  be  enshrined  in  Connecticut.  Give  it 
to  me,  and  I  will  set  it  up  in  Trinity  College."  Before  very 
long  the  promise  was  fulfilled.  The  Mitre  was  placed  near 
the  portrait  of  its  wearer,  and  marked  as  that  of  "  The  Apos- 
tle of  the  New  World  " ;  and  there  were  added  to  the  number 
of  the  Christian  Ballads  the  stirring  verses  which  the  contem- 
plation of  the  object  had  drawn  from  the  heart  of  the  donor.^^ 
It  is  curious  to  observe  with  what  different  feelings  men 
view  such  things  as  these.  To  Bishop  Coxe,  in  the  fervor  of 
the  poetic  imagination  which  produced  the  Christian  Ballads, 
the  Mitre  was  a  sacred  relic !  To  Dean  Stanley  in  his  visit  to 
this  Country  some  years  ago,  it  was  a  grotesque  survival  of 
antiquated  absurdity.  The  Dean  was  extremely  amused  with 
it.  The  moment  I  was  presented  to  him  he  went  off  into  gen- 
tle ripples  of  hilarity  at  the  remembrance  of  his  recent  inspec- 
tion of  it.  The  amiable  gentleman  had  probably  never  before 
seen  a  Mitre  except  on  the  recumbent  effigies  of  his  ancient 
Abbey,  and  he  doubtless  associated  this  one  with  a  petrified 
Christianity.     But  Wisdom  is  justified  of  all  her  children. 

19.  Coxe's  Christian  Ballads;  Oxford  ed.  1859:  pp.  82-84. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE  DECLINE  OF  LIFE. 

SO  early  as  1783,  when  he  was  only  in  the  fifty-fifth  year 
of  his  age,  Bishop  Seabury  speaks  of  himself  as  in  the 
decline  of  life.  Literally,  of  course,  and  in  respect  of 
the  actual  number  of  the  years  of  his  earthly  pilgrimage,  the 
expression  was  accurate.  Yet  with  regard  to  the  work  of  his 
life  it  would  seem  that  the  period  upon  which  he  entered  after 
the  close  of  his  fifty-fifth  year  was  rather  the  growth  and  in- 
crease than  the  decline  of  his  life.  For  in  view  of  all  that  he 
accomplished  in  that  period,  it  appears  as  the  crown  and  cul- 
mination of  his  career;  and  it  is  for  what  was  then  accom- 
plished that  he  has  been  chiefly  known  and  esteemed  since  his 
departure. 

In  the  efifort  which  has  been  thus  far  made  to  describe  this 
part  of  the  Bishop's  life,  the  plan  pursued  has  involved  the 
more  particular  consideration  of  his  connection  with  events 
which  were  of  more  or  less  general  or  public  concern.  There 
remain  to  be  considered  various  happenings  which  were  of  a 
more  individual  nature,  and  which  seem  worthy  of  attention 
so  far  as  they  may  serve  to  promote  the  better  appreciation  of 
his  personal  character.  It  seems  hardly  possible  to  classify 
these  matters,  or  to  find  any  thread  which  runs  through  and 
unites  them  all,  save  that  of  his  own  personality :  and  this  can 
hardly  fail  to  be  better  understood  by  some  account  of  his  cir- 
cumstances ;  and  of  the  things  in  which  he  was  personally  con- 
cerned, either  by  his  own  action,  or  by  the  actions  of  others 
which  were  brought  to  bear  upon  him.     Even  without  defi- 

366 


THE   DECLINE   OF    LIFE.  367 

nitely  knowing  what  his  action  in  every  case  was,  we  may 
form  some  idea  of  him  from  a  better  knowledge  of  the  situa- 
tions which  confronted  him.  There  are  few  of  his  own  letters 
extant,  but  there  are  many  letters  extant  which  were  received 
by  him ;  and  some  selection  from  these  may  help  to  show  the 
conditions  under  which  his  work  was  done ;  and,  sometimes, 
what  his  work  in  the  particular  instance  w^as. 

It  will  have  appeared  from  several  allusions  to  the  Bishop's 
want  of  money,  that  he  was  during  this  period  of  his  life  much 
straitened  in  his  means  of  living.  Life  apparently  had 
always  been  a  struggle  to  him;  and  the  summit  of  such  tem- 
poral prosperity  as  he  attained,  seems  to  have  been  reached 
in  his  position  at  West  Chester  before  the  breaking  out  of  the 
War.  Like  many  others  of  his  side  of  that  contest,  he  lost 
almost  all  that  he  had  in  it;  and  when  he  set  out  upon  his 
quest  for  the  Episcopate  he  devoted  the  remainder  to  that  en- 
terprise. He  speaks  of  himself  as  having  in  this  venture  more 
than  expended  all  that  he  had.  It  was  this  condition  of  affairs, 
and  the  consciousness  that  he  had  rendered  substantial  service 
to  the  cause  of  the  Government  during  the  war  of  the  Colonies 
against  it,  and  had  in  the  effort  to  render  such  service  suffered 
many  losses,  which  led  him  to  seek  from  that  Government  some 
compensation,  as  has  been  already  related.  From  that  applica- 
tion he  seems  to  have  heard  nothing  until  so  late  as  1792,  when, 
apprised  by  his  agent  in  London  that  he  had  been  allowed  £30 
as  compensation,  he  notes  in  his  letter  book  the  fact  that  he  had 
drawn  for  that  sum.  His  situation  in  England,  and  indeed 
during  the  rest  of  his  life,  was  made  the  more  trying  by  the 
withdrawal  from  him,  after  his  consecration,  of  the  fifty 
pounds  per  annum  which  he  had  theretofore  received  as  a 
Missionary  of  the  Society.  It  was  partly  to  supply  this  defi- 
ciency, and  also  to  give  expression  to  their  earnest  sympathy 
with  him  in  the  arduous  work  before  him,  that  some  of  his 
friends  in  England  joined  in  an  annual  contribution  for  his 


36S  MEMOIR   OF    15IS1I0P    SEAIIURY. 

supi)ort,  which  continued  to  be  paid  until  the  close  of  his  life. 
The  chief  instruments  in  this  bounty  were  the  Rev^.  Jonathan 
Boucher,  then  Vicar  of  Epsom,  and  William  Stevens  Esq^  of 
London,  who  seems  to  have  been  most  constantly  devoted  to 
him. 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Boucher  of 
March  31,  1786,  throws  light  upon  this  and  other  matters  con- 
nected with  the  story: 

"  I  was  much  hurt  by  your  long  silence,  because  I  could  not 
help  being  apprehensive  it  might  hurt  you.  Everybody  was 
anxious  to  hear  of  and  about  you,  and  as  accounts  of  one  kind 
or  another  were  every  now  and  then  coming  over,  it  seemed 
to  those  who  had  flattered  themselves  with  being  considered 
as  your  particular  friends,  that  everybody  but  them  did  hear 
of  you.  All  is  well  now  and  I  have  taken  the  liberty  thus 
plainly  to  tell  you  what  we  were  about  to  think  and  say,  that 
you  may  be  more  on  your  guard  hereafter. 

I  am  no  longer  a  secretary  in  the  service  of  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel:  on  my  return  from  my  foreign  tour 
Dr.  Morrice  out-morriced  himself.  He  was  more  than  ordi- 
narily queer  and  captious.  This,  at  length,  was  taken  notice 
of  by  the  Abp.,  to  whom  I  explained  the  whole  affair;  which 
was  that  he  suspected  me  of  too  strong  a  leaning,  and  par- 
tiality to  the  Missionaries;  whilst  I  thought  him  unreasonably 
strict  and  narrow.  It  ended  in  my  resignation;  which  I  did 
with  the  entire  approbation  of  the  Abp.,  who  made  an  hand- 
some speech  of,  and  for,  me,  to  the  Board;  and  Dr.  Morrice 
and  I  are  now  very  cordial  friends  again. 

As  the  willing  secretary  or  agent  to  a  much  smaller,  but  not 
less  benevolent  Society,  my  importance  perhaps  is  less,  but  not 
so  my  satisfactions.  I  feel  a  very  sincere  pleasure  in  directing 
you,  from  them,  to  draw  on  me,  as  soon  as  you  please,  at 
twenty  or  thirty  days  after  sight,  for  fifty  pounds.     This  is 


THE   DECLINE   OF    LIFE.  369 

for  one  year,  from  the  time  of  your  arrival,  as  Bp.,  in  Connect- 
icut ;  which  date  you  must  be  so  good  as  to  apprize  me  of,  and 
yourself  attend  to.  I  hope,  tho'  I  dare  not  assure  you,  this  or 
nearly  this,  will  continue  as  long  as  you  and  I  continue.  One 
of  your  friends,  Mr.  Anth^  Bacon,  is  already  dead,  and  we  have 
not  yet  been  able  to  find  a  successor  to  him.  It  is  proper  you 
should  know  to  whom  you  are  indebted  for  this  Christian  con- 
tribution, and  tho'  I  have  no  authority  to  tell  you,  I  here  set 
down  their  names.  The  Dean  of  Canterbury,  the  Rev*^.  Dr. 
Poyntz,  a  Prebendary  of  Durham,  the  Rev^.  Dr.  Glasse, 
King's  Chaplain:  John  Frere  Esq^;  Cha^  Eyre  Esq^.  King's 
Printer,  Thomas  Calverley  Esq^.,  my  neighbour  here,  your  old 
and  true  friend  W"\  Stevens  Esq'".,  and  your  humble  servant, 
together  with  Mr.  Fowle,  who  was  my  poor  wife's  apothecary : 
each  five  guineas.  They,  as  well  as  I,  wish  it  were  more;  as 
well  as  more  permanent:  but,  in  the  nature  of  things,  this 
cannot  be.     .     .     ." 

The  withdrawal  of  the  Society's  fifty  pounds  a  year  had 
left  the  Bishop  without  any  income  whatever.  The  contribu- 
tion referred  to  by  Mr.  Boucher,  though  it  was  to  date  back 
to  the  beginning  of  his  Episcopal  work,  was  not  fixed  until 
1786:  the  half  pay  as  Chaplain  was  at  the  beginning  of  his 
Episcopate  still  in  doubt,  and  the  payments  upon  it  did  not 
begin  for  some  time  after  his  return  home.  The  prospect 
before  him,  in  view  of  his  expenses  abroad,  and  the  provision 
for  his  family  at  home,  was  certainly  appalling.  Yet  fully 
recognizing  the  gravity  of  the  situation  his  heart  seems  never 
to  have  failed  him,  nor  did  his  trials  lead  him  to  the  least 
querulous  complaint.  He  still  felt  himself,  as  he  once  ex- 
pressed it  to  Boucher,  the  same  humble  pensioner  on  Divine 
Providence  as  he  had  always  been;  and  in  that  faith  went  on 
with  his  business  in  meekness.  It  was  probably  due  chiefly 
to  the  liberality  of  his  very  devoted  friend  James  Rivington 


370  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

that  he  was  at  all  able  to  sustain  himself  and  provide  for  his 
family  during  the  period  of  his  sojourn  in  England.  Mr. 
Rivington,  freely  and  of  his  own  generous  motion  advanced 
money  to  him  to  a  considerable  extent;  and  although  his  own 
reverses  in  later  times  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  seek  re- 
imbursement it  was  evidently  a  trial  to  him  that  he  had  to  do 
so,  instead  of  making  his  advances  a  gift  to  the  cause  he  had 
so  much  at  heart.  Various  sums  due  to  him  seem  to  have 
been  repaid  by  the  Bishop  during  his  residence  in  New  Lon- 
don; and  there  is  evidence  of  some  collections  made  for  this 
purpose  from  those  who  had  obligated  themselves  to  the 
payment  of  monies  which  they  owed  to  the  Bishop  for  medi- 
cal services  rendered  by  him  in  New  York  during  the  War  — 
as  well  as  on  other  accounts.  It  would  be  tedious,  as  well  as 
unnecessary,  to  go  into  these  matters  in  more  detail ;  but  the 
allusions  here  made  to  them  may  help  to  give  some  idea  of  the 
difficulties  by  which  the  subject  of  our  memoir  was  hampered 
in  the  discharge  of  his  duty ;  and  as  nothing  is  more  depress- 
ing, and  enfeebling  to  the  energies  of  mind  and  body,  than 
the  consciousness  of  the  hopelessness  of  trying  to  make  both 
ends  meet  in  the  effort  for  self-support,  and  support  of  those 
who  are  dependent  upon  us,  it  must  enhance  our  appreciation 
of  the  true  greatness  which  in  the  present  case  was  shown  in 
the  rising  above  such  difficulties,  and,  in  spite  of  them  all,  in 
the  doing  of  so  much  and  such  splendid  and  unselfish  work. 

On  the  Bishop's  return  to  New  London  he  took  charge  of 
the  Church  of  St.  James,  as  Rector,  and  no  doubt ,  received 
some  income,  though  probably  small,  from  that  source.  He 
had,  however,  in  that  connection  the  use  of  a  comfortable 
residence  as  a  parsonage.  Some  contributions  were  made 
from  time  to  time  for  his  support  from  other  parts  of  the 
Diocese ;  but  the  only  regular  and  reliable  income  which  he 
appears  to  have  had,  and  which  only  began  to  come  in  after 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  37I 

a  year  or  more  of  residence  in  Connecticut,  seems  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  sources  above  mentioned  in  England;  and 
together  to  have  amounted  to  about  £ioo  sterHng  per  annum. 
Certainly  a  very  good  field  for  Providence  to  work  in  was 
thus  presented;  and  as  the  Bishop  continued  to  subsist  for 
some  years,  during  which  he  found  occasion  for  the  expres- 
sion of  his  gratitude  for  the  comforts  and  decencies  of  life 
which  he  enjoyed,  I  presume  that  the  work  of  Providence  was 
—  as  always  —  well  done  in  his  case ;  though  by  what  means 
that  work  was  accomplished  it  is  hard  to  conclude  from  ex- 
tant evidences.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection 
that  the  Bishop  died  intestate,  and  that  the  Inventory  upon 
administration  shows  the  value  of  his  personal  effects  to  have 
been  estimated  at  about  £275  —  presumably  currency.  He 
seems  to  have  left  no  other  property. 

After  all,  however,  straitness  of  circumstances  is  but 
comparative ;  and  lest  I  should  seem  to  have  presented  too 
lugubrious  a  picture  of  Bishop  Seabury's  poverty,  let  me  com- 
pare it  with  the  festivities  of  one  of  his  predecessors  in  the 
Scotch  line.  Dr.  James  Hamilton,  Bishop  of  Galloway,  of 
whose  manner  of  life  Stephen  gives  the  following  quaint 
account : 

"  The  Bishop  was  very  happy  in  a  pious,  fond  and  virtuous 
wife.  She  knew  his  constitution,  and  did,  under  God,  as 
abstemious  as  he  was,  keep  him  in  a  good  state  of  health  dur- 
ing her  life;  but  for  the  seven  years  he  Hved  after,  his  daugh- 
ters being  very  young,  and  when  come  to  any  maturity,  mar- 
ried from  him,  he  took  the  liberty  to  manage  his  diet  as  he 
pleased,  which  generally  was  one  roasted  egg  in  the  morning; 
a  little  broth  and  perhaps  nothing  else  about  four;  at  night  a 
glass  of  small  ale  to  his  pipe  in  the  winter,  and  for  the  most 
part  water  in  the  summer.     This,  with  his  book,  was  most  of 


37-  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

the  good  Bishop's   food  during  the  last  seven  years  of  his 
lifc."^ 

Stephen's  reference  to  the  "  book  "  may  have  been  made  in 
support  of  the  aphorism  that  *'  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread 
alone  " ;  but  the  record  of  the  diet  would  seem  to  suffice  for 
the  establishment  of  that  truth,  without  further  evidence. 
From  the  appearance  of  Bishop  Scabury's  latest  portrait  one 
would  infer  that  he  must  have  had  more  "  to  his  pipe  "  than 
went  to  the  nourishment  of  his  abstemious  predecessor.- 

The  fact  that  we  have  gone  over  the  steps  by  which  the 
Ecclesiastical  Union  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  were 
established  will  not  lessen  the  interest  of  some  discussion  of 
tendencies  as  they  appeared  while  the  events  were  as  yet  in- 
complete. The  views  of  Inglis  and  Boucher  and  others  as 
given  in  their  letters  to  Bishop  Seabury  throw  a  good  deal  of 
light  upon  the  feeling  in  England  in  regard  to  the  innovations 
proposed  by  the  Churches  to  the  southward ;  and  upon  the  an- 
ticipations which  were  entertained  as  to  the  restraining  and 
corrective  influences  to  be  exercised  by  the  English  Bishops 
pending  the  application  to  them  for  the  consecration  of  Amer- 
ican Bishops.  Such  papers  show  too,  to  some  extent,  what 
was  present  to  Bishop  Seabury's  mind  during  this  period. 
Dr.  Chandler,  who  is  always  interesting,  had  also  some  things 
to  say  as  to  these  points  after  his  return  to  this  Country;  of 
which  the  following  extracts  from  one  of  his  letters,  may  be 
taken  as  a  sample: 

"  Your  very  obliging  letter  of  Jany.  lo*^  with  a  P.  S.  of  the 
12th  came  safely  to  hand;  but,  as  you  conjectured,  I  had  not 

1.  History  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,  III,  7. 

2.  The  pipe,  a  portly  and  well  colored  meerschaum,  is  now  in  pos- 
session of  his  great-great-grandson,  Hon.   Samuel    Seabury. 


THE    DECLINE   OF    LIFE.  373 

the  pleasure  of  seeing  Mr.  Wood,  to  whom  you  entrusted  it. 
I  should  have  liked  to  see  him  for  several  reasons,  and,  par- 
ticularly, as  he  is  destined  to  reside  in  Virginia,  where,  with 
regard  to  ecclesiastical  principles,  and,  I  fear,  religious  prac- 
tices, instead  of  clear  heads  and  sound  hearts,  they  discover 
little  besides  zvonnds,  and  bruises,  and  putrifying  sores.  You. 
undoubtedly,  said  all  that  was  proper  to  him,  on  the  occasion ; 
and  I  could  have  wished  for  an  opportunity  of  adding  my 
testimony,  such  as  it  is,  to  yours,  and  of  seeing  that  he  had 
duly  profited  by  your  instruction. 

I  am  glad  to  find  that  the  Clergy  in  England  have  begun  to 
recommend  to  your  Lordship,  and  that  one  Bishop  has  already 
given  his  sanction  to  the  practice.  Why  any  of  them  should 
be  backward  in  doing  so,  I  cannot  conceive ;  unless  they  are 
of  opinion  that  no  offices  in  the  Christian  Church  were  rightly 
performed,  before  the  time  of  Constantine,  when  the  civil 
power  first  gave  its  patronage. 

You  have  done  well  in  writing  to  Inglis  and  Boucher;  and 
you  would  have  done  better,  had  you  written  sooner.  A  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Stevens  will  find  him,  if  properly  directed,  at  No. 
68  Old  Broad  Street.  Neglect  not  writing  to  him,  and  in 
your  letter  forget  not  respectfully  to  mention  the  Dean  of 
Cant:  Dr.  Glasse,  Mr.  Jones,  Anthony  Bacon  and  j\Ir.  Frere. 
These  little  attentions  may  be  of  more  service  to  you  than, 
perhaps,  you  imagine.  Each  of  these  gentlemen  should  have 
a  copy  of  your  initiatory  pamphlet.  I  formerly  expressed 
my  entire  approbation  of  what  appears  there  in  your  name ; 
and  I  did  not  mean  to  condemn  what  appears  in  the  name  of 
your  Clergy.  The  sermon  is  an  excellent  one  —  only  the 
Text  ought,  somehow,  to  have  been  brought  in  sight  during 
the  course  of  it.  It  is  now  no  more  than  a  motto ;  and  many 
others  might  have  been  as  properly  chosen. 

Whatever  may  be  imagined  or  pretended  by  others,  I  can 
never  bring  myself  to  think,  that  your  Consecration  has  a  nat- 


374  MEMOIR   OF    BISIIOr    SEACURY. 

ural  tendency,  or  had  when  you  obtained  it,  a  probable  ten- 
dency, to  make  a  schism  in  the  American  Church ;  and  if  a 
schism  should  actually  be  occasioned  by  it,  it  will  be  the  fault 
of  those  who  act  contrary  to  the  maxims  of  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,  and  not  of  you ;  who  have  strictly  adhered  to  them. 
However,  I  am  still  not  without  hope,  notwithstanding  the 
late  appearances,  that  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy  may  be 
retained  throughout  this  Continent.  For  Mr.  Beach,  from 
whom  I  had  a  visit  lately,  assures  me,  that  all  the  Clergy  but 
one  (viz:  the  Rector  of  N.  Y.)  and  a  very  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  Laity,  in  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  were  for 
giving  their  future  Bishops  the  accustomed  authority  over 
their  Clergy,  although  it  was  carried  by  dexterity  of  manage- 
ment against  them :  and  he  is  clearly  of  opinion,  that  if  the 
Bishops  in  England  will  signify  that  this  right  must  be  re- 
stored, as  a  condition  of  receiving  Consecration  from  them, 
it  will  be  complied  with  without  any  difficulty  or  hesitation. 
The  Bishops  in  England  shall  not  be  ignorant  of  this ;  and 
afterwards,  if  they  do  not  insist  upon  the  condition,  the  blood 
of  Episcopacy  must  rest  upon  them. 

I  honour  your  declaration,  that  you  must  and  will,  to  the 
utmost  of  your  ability,  keep  pure  and  undefiled  that  Apostol- 
ical Commission  which  you  hold.  Consistently  with  this  reso- 
lution, when  Bishops  are  introduced  into  the  several  districts 
with  all  their  essential  powers,  you  may,  and  it  will  be  your 
interest  to,  unite  with  them.  Then  it  will  be  expedient  for  a 
general  Ecclesiastical  Council  to  be  held,  consisting  of  the 
Bishops  and  Proctors  for  their  respective  Clergy;  and  then 
will  be  the  time  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  Liturgy 
&c,  besides  those  which  are  immediately  necessary  under  the 
late  change  of  government,  as  may  be  thought  proper.  I  wish 
this  important  work  may  be  kept  back  till  then.     .     .     . 

As  you  applied  to  Mr.  Moore,  I  trust  that  before  this  time 
you  have  seen  the  Journals  of  the  aforesaid  Convention,  and 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  375 

their  corrected  Liturgy;  and  that  you  have  taken  this  ground 
for  writing,  as  you  proposed  to  the  two  Archbishops.  They 
must,  in  the  end,  think  better  of  the  matter. 

Apropos !  I  ask  pardon  for  not  having  mentioned  before 
the  sight  of  your  letter  to  Dr.  Smith,  with  which  you  favoured 
me.  ...  In  truth,  the  letter  was  exactly  agreeable  to  my 
wishes ;  and  had  not  S.  been  incorrigible,  it  would  have  had  a 
good  effect  upon  him.  How  far  you  are  right  in  your  con- 
jectures with  regard  to  the  projected  plan  of  operation,  time 
will  discover.  As  to  Smith's  reference  to  Bingham,  to  prove 
that  one  Bishop  and  two  Presbyters  may  consecrate  a  Bishop, 
I  have  not  been  at  the  trouble  of  examining  the  passage ;  but 
I  can  prove,  perhaps  from  the  same  Bingham,  however  from 
as  good  authority  as  his,  that  one  Bishop,  zvithout  the  assist- 
ance of  Presbyters  can,  when  the  exigencies  of  the  case  re- 
quire it,  perform  a  compleat  consecration:  And,  were  but 
one  Bishop  to  be  concerned  in  any  particular  consecration,  I 
had  rather  see  him  proceed  without  Presbyters  than  with 
them.  Of  the  three  supposed  candidates  whom  you  mention, 
White,  in  my  opinion,  is  very  far  the  least  unworthy. 

I  have  lately  received  a  letter,  but  without  date,  from  honest 
Charles  Wesley.  He  speaks  of  you  in  terms  of  high  respect 
and  affection;  and  continues  to  lament  the  rash  step  taken  by 
his  doting,  superannuated  brother.  He  tells  me  that  Coke 
has  returned  to  England,  in  order  to  make  mischief  there ;  but 
he  consoles  himself  with  the  hope  that  the  mischief  he  has 
done  in  America  may,  in  a  good  measure,  be  repaired,  by  the 
prudence  and  superior  abilities  of  Mr.  Pilmore.  I  hear  that 
upon  the  latter  you  have  conferred  H.  Orders,  and  that  he 
is  settled  in  St.  Paul's  Church,  Philadelphia.  Possibly  it 
might  have  been  better,  if  he  had,  for  some  time,  circulated 
first  among  the  Methodists.  I  must  give  you  a  short  epigram 
made  by  Charles  upon  his  brother : 


37^  MEMOIR   OF   CISIIOP   SEABURY. 

*  Wesley  himself  and  friends  betrays, 
By  his  own  sense  forsook: 
While  siiddainly  his  hands  he  lays 
On  the  hot  head  of  Coke!  ^ 


I  am  impatient  to  hear  what  measures  have  been  taken  to- 
wards providing  for  you  a  support,  in  some  measure  answer- 
able to  your  station,  though  I  fear  you  can  expect  but  a  scanty 
one.  As  to  my  disorder,  I  do  not  find  that  it  is  much  mended. 
.  .  .  I  am  happy  in  the  encouragement  you  give  me  to 
hope  for  a  visit  from  you  in  the  ensuing  season;  do  not  dis- 
appoint me. 

I  am,  my  dear  Bishop, 

totally  and  unalterably  yours, 
Eliz:  Town  Feb:  i6*^^  1786  T.  B.  Chandler 

Rt.  Rev^  Bp.  Seabury  " 

There  are  several  clues  presented  in  this  letter  which  might 
be  seized  with  interest  and  advantage ;  but,  as  a  choice  must 
be  made,  it  shall  be  determined  by  the  reference  to  Charles 
Wesley.  Chandler  mentions  a  letter  then  recently  received,  as 
containing  mention  of  Bishop  Seabury ;  but  there  had  been  a 
letter,  previous  to  that,  addressed  by  Charles  Wesley  to 
Chandler  as  he  w^as  leaving  England,  which  Chandler  brought 
with  him,  and  which  subsequently  came  into  Bishop  Seabury's 
possession   and   still   remains   among   his   papers.     Beardsley 

3.  Charles  Wesley's  other  epigram  on  his  brother's  rash  act,  quoted 
by  Beardsley  in  his  life  of  Bishop  Seabury,  p.  399,  is  more  clever  than 
that  given  by  Chandler: 

"  So  easily  are  Bishops  made. 
By  man's  or  woman's  whim ; 
Wesley  his  hands  on  Coke  hath  laid, 
But  —  who  laid  hands  on  him?" 


THE   DECLINE    OF    LIFE.  377 

makes  a  quotation  from  it,  but  it  is  of  so  much  interest  and 
value  in  its  bearing  on  the  history  of  Methodism  in  the  Eng- 
Hsh  Church,  and  the  independent  organization  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Society  in  this  Country,  as  to  be  worthy  of 
publication  in  full.  It  is  matter  of  interest  to  note  in  this 
connection  that  an  application  was  at  a  later  date  made  by  Dr. 
Coke  (who  had  received  from  John  Wesley  by  a  private  im- 
position of  hands  an  authority  of  superintendency  over  the 
Methodists  in  this  Country)  for  consecration  by  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  in  order  that  the  Methodists  might  have  Bishops  who 
had  been  Episcopally  consecrated,  instead  of  those  who  could 
show  no  other  right  to  the  title  of  Bishop  than  such  as  had 
been  derived  from  the  Presbyter  John  Wesley.  The  letter  of 
Coke  need  not  be  reproduced  here.  A  similar  letter  from  him 
to  Bishop  White  is  printed  in  Bishop  White's  Memoirs,  to 
which  reference  may  be  made  for  information.^  I  am  not 
aware  that  Bishop  Seabury  answered  Dr.  Coke's  letter :  but, 
if  so,  he  must  have  been  unable  to  give  any  encouragement  to 
the  proposal.  The  obvious  objection  to  it  was  that  it  in- 
volved the  gift  of  Episcopacy  to  a  body  which  at  that  time 
was,  and  intended  to  remain,  independent  on  the  authority  of 
the  Church.  Charles  Wesley's  letter  will  explain  the  situa- 
tion, which  being  of  course  understood  by  Bishop  Seabury 
would  preclude  his  compliance  with  Dr.  Coke's  proposal.  It 
is  as  follows: 

To  Dr.  Chandler.  "London.     April  28.     1785. 

Rev^.  &  Dear  Sir. 

As  you  are  setting  out  for  America,  and  I  for  a  more  dis- 
tant Country,  I  think  it  needful  to  leave  with  you  some  ac- 
count of  myself  and  my  companions  thro'  life.  At  8  years 
old,  in  171 5,  I  was  sent  by  my  father,  Rector  of  Epworth,  to 
Westminster  School,  and  placed  under  the  care  of  my  eldest 

4.  Memoirs,  pp.  167-170,  343-348- 


37^  MEMOIR   OF   BISIIOr    SEABURY. 

brother  Samncl,  a  strict  Churchman,  who  brought  me  up  in 
his  own  principles.  In  1727  I  was  elected  student  of  Christ 
church.     My  brother  John  was  then  Fellow  of  Lincoln. 

The  first  year  at  College,  I  lost  in  diversions.  The  next, 
I  betook  myself  to  study.  Diligence  led  me  into  serious  think- 
ing. I  went  to  the  weekly  Sacrament,  and  persuaded  two  or 
three  young  scholars  to  accompany  me ;  and  likewise  to  ob- 
serve the  method  of  study  prescribed  by  the  Statutes  of  the 
University.  This  gained  me  the  harmless  nickname  of  Meth- 
odist. In  half  a  year  my  brother  left  his  curacy  of  Epworth. 
and  came  to  our  assistance.  We  then  proceeded  regularly  in 
our  studies,  and  in  doing  what  good  we  could  to  the  bodies 
and  souls  of  men. 

I  took  my  Degrees,  and  only  thought  of  spending  all  my 
days  at  Oxford:  but  my  brother  who  always  had  the  as- 
cendant over  me,  persuaded  me  to  accompany  him  and  Mr. 
Oglethorpe  to  Georgia.  I  exceedingly  dreaded  entering  into 
holy  Orders;  but  he  overruled  me  here  also;  and  I  was  or- 
dained Deacon  by  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  one  Sunday,  and  the 
next  Priest  by  the  Bishop  of  London. 

Our  only  design  was  to  do  all  the  good  we  could  as  Min- 
isters of  the  Church  of  England,  to  which  we  were  firmly 
attached  both  by  education  and  principle.  My  brother  still 
acknowledges  Her  the  best  national  Church  in  the  World. 

In  1736  we  arrived,  as  Missionaries  in  Georgia.  My 
brother  took  charge  of  Savannah,  and  I  of  Frederica :  waiting 
for  an  opportunity  of  preaching  to  the  Indians.  I  was  in  the 
meantime  Secretary  to  Mr.  Oglethorpe,  and  also  Secretary  of 
Indian  affairs. 

The  hardships  of  lying  upon  the  ground  &c  soon  threw  me 
into  a  fever  and  dysentery,  which  forced  me  in  half  a  year  to 
return  to  England.  My  brother  returned  the  next  year.  Still 
we  had  no  plan  but  to  serve  God,  and  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land.    The  lost  sheep  of  this  fold  were  our  principal  care; 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  379 

not  excluding  Christians  of  whatever  denomination  who  were 
willing  to  add  the  power  of  Godliness  to  their  own  particular 
form. 

Our  eldest  brother  Samuel  was  alarmed  at  our  going  on, 
and  strongly  expressed  his  fears  of  its  ending  in  a  separation 
from  the  Church.  All  our  enemies  prophesied  the  same. 
This  confirmed  us  the  more  in  our  resolution  to  continue  in 
our  calling;  which  we  constantly  avowed,  both  in  public  and 
in  private  by  word,  and  preaching  and  writing;  exhorting  all 
our  hearers  to  follow  our  example. 

My  brother  drew  up  rules  for  our  Society,  one  of  which 
was  constantly  to  attend  the  Church  prayers  and  Sacrament. 
We  both  signed  these  rules,  and  also  our  Hymn  Books. 

When  we  were  no  longer  permitted  to  preach  in  the 
Churches,  we  preached  (but  never  in  Church  hours)  in 
houses,  or  fields,  and  sent  from  thence  (or  rather  carried) 
multitudes  to  Church,  who  had  never  been  there  before.  Our 
Society  in  most  places  made  the  bulk  of  the  Congregation, 
both  at  prayers  and  sacrament. 

I  never  lost  my  dread  of  a  separation,  or  ceased  to  guard 
our  Societies  against  it.  I  frequently  told  them  '  I  am  your 
servant  as  long  as  you  remain  members  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  but  no  longer.  Should  you  forsake  Her,  you  would  re- 
nounce me.' 

Some  of  our  Lay-preachers  very  early  discovered  an  in- 
clination to  separate,  which  induced  my  brother  to  publish 
"  Reasons  against  a  Separation."  As  often  as  it  appeared  we 
beat  down  the  Schismatical  spirit.  If  any  one  did  leave  the 
Church,  at  the  same  time  he  left  our  Society.  For  50  years 
we  kept  the  sheep  in  the  fold,  and  having  fulfilled  the  number 
of  our  days,  only  waited  to  depart  in  peace. 

After  our  having  continued  friends  for  about  70  years  and 
fellow-labourers  for  above  50,  can  anything  but  death  part 
us?     I   can   scarcely  yet  believe  that   in   his   82^   year,  m}^ 


380  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

brother,  my  old  intimate  friend  and  companion  should  have 
assumed  the  Episcopal  character,  ordained  Elders,  conse- 
crated a  Bishop,  and  sent  him  to  ordain  the  Lay-preachers  in 
America !  I  was  then  in  Bristol  at  his  elbow ;  yet  he  never 
gave  me  the  least  hint  of  his  intention.  How  was  he  sur- 
prized into  so  rash  an  action?  He  certainly  persuaded  him- 
self that  it  was  right. 

Lord  Mansfield  told  me  last  year  that  Ordination  was 
Separation!  This  my  brother  does  not,  and  will  not  see:  or 
that  he  has  renounced  the  principles  and  practice  of  his  whole 
life;  that  he  has  acted  contrary  to  all  his  declarations,  pro- 
testations, and  writings;  robbed  his  friends  of  their  boasting; 
realized  the  Nags  head  ordination ;  and  left  an  indelible  blot 
on  his  name,  as  long  as  it  shall  be  remembered. 

Thus  our  partnership  here  is  dissolved  —  but  not  our 
friendship.  I  have  taken  him  for  better  for  worse  till  death  do 
us  part — -or  rather  re-unite  in  love  inseparable.  I  have  lived 
on  earth  a  little  too  long,  who  have  seen  this  evil  day.  But  I 
shall  very  soon  be  taken  from  it,  in  steadfast  faith  that  the 
Lord  will  maintain  his  own  cause,  and  carry  on  his  work,  and 
fulfil  his  promise  to  his  Church,  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  World ! 

Permit  me  to  subscribe  myself 

Rev^.  and  dear  Sir, 
Your  faithful  &  obliged  serv*  &  brother 

Charles  Wesley. 

P.  S. 

What  will  become  of  those  poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness 
the  American  Methodists?  How  have  they  been  betrayed 
into  a  separation  from  the  Church  of  England,  which  their 
preachers  and  they  no  more  intended  than  the  Methodists 
here !  Had  they  had  patience  a  little  longer,  they  would  have 
seen  a  Real  Primitive  Bishop  in  America  duly  consecrated  by 
three  Scotch  Bishops,  who  had  their  consecration   from  the 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  381 

English  Bishops,  and  are  acknowledged  by  them  as  the  same 
as  themselves.  There  is  therefore  not  the  least  difference 
betwixt  the  members  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Church,  and  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  England. 

You  know  I  had  the  happiness  to  converse  with  that  truly 
apostolical  man,  who  is  esteemed  by  all  that  know  him  as  much 
as  by  you  and  me.  He  told  me  he  looked  upon  the  Meth- 
odists of  America  as  sound  members  of  the  Church,  and  was 
ready  to  ordain  any  of  the  Preachers  whom  he  should  find 
duly  qualified.  His  ordinations  would  be  indeed  genuine, 
valid  and  Episcopal. 

But  what  are  your  poor  Methodists  now  ?  Only  a  new  sect 
of  Presbyterians.  And  after  my  brother's  death  which  is 
now  so  very  near  what  will  be  their  end?  They  will  lose  all 
their  usefulness  and  importance;  they  will  turn  aside  to  vain 
jangling;  they  will  settle  again  upon  their  lees  and  like  other 
sects  of  Dissenters  come  to  nothing." 

The  Rev^.  Mr.  Pilmore,  whom  Dr.  Chandler  mentions  as 
having  been  ordained  by  Bishop  Seabury,  was  an  instance  of 
the  Bishop's  readiness,  described  by  Charles  Wesley,  to  or- 
dain any  of  the  Methodist  lay  preachers  whom  he  should  find 
duly  qualified.  Looking  upon  the  Methodists,  as  they  had 
been  up  to  that  period,  as  members  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, banded  together  for  work  in  that  communion,  there  was 
of  course  no  requirement  to  be  made  of  Mr.  Pilmore  except 
that  he  should  be  duly  quahfied;  and  so  he  appears  to  have 
been.  He  is  highly  spoken  of  in  various  accounts,  and  did 
most  useful  work  both  in  Philadelphia  and  afterwards  in  New 
York.  His  work  in  New  York,  however,  was  matter  of  great 
anxiety  to  himself  and  others ;  and  in  the  prosecution  of  it  he 
appears  to  have  incurred  the  displeasure  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  of  Provoost  then  Bishop  of  New  York.  The  beginning 
of  this  work  was  by  the  interest  of  certain  members  of  Trin- 


382  MEMOIR    OF    DISIlOr    SEABURY. 

ity  Church  who  desired  to  have  him  appointed  an  assistant  in 
that  Parish,  and  faihng  that  they  organized  another  congre- 
gation ^  and  founded  the  parish  of  Christ  Church.  It  ap- 
pears from  letters  of  James  Rivington  and  Mr.  Pilmore  that 
while  they  were  under  the  displeasure,  or  at  least  discoun- 
tenance, of  Bishop  Provoost,  a  strong  pressure  was  brought 
to  bear  upon  Bishop  Seabury  to  consecrate  the  new  Church. 
This  of  course  he  could  not  do ;  but  so  far  as  he  rightly  could 
he  advised  them  in  their  troubles ;  and  although  no  letter  of 
his  has  been  preserved,  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  tone  of 
their  communications  that  his  advice  was  salutary,  and  con- 
ducive to  peace  and  order. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  in  the  settlement  of  a  new  order  of 
things  there  should  have  been  sometimes  an  unwillingness  to 
substitute  new  habits  for  old  ones;  and  that  it  should  have 
been  one  of  the  burdens  of  the  Episcopate  to  bring  those  who 
were  disposed  to  adhere  to  their  own  ways  into  conformity 
with  the  body  of  the  Diocese.  Several  letters  of  the  Bishop 
show  his  gentle,  firm  and  dignified  way  of  dealing  with  such 
cases.  The  venerable  Dr.  Dibblee  for  example  is  addressed 
in  a  way  which  shows  both  the  love  and  respect  which  the 
Bishop  had  for  him,  and  also  the  power  of  constraint  brought 
to  bear  upon  him.  And  so  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Tyler, 
one  of  the  most  respectable  and  worthy  of  his  Clergy,  there 
seems  at  one  time  to  have  been  a  difference  with  the  Convoca- 
tion which  had  a  very  serious  outlook.  The  following  letters 
may  illustrate  the  Bishop's  way  of  dealing  with  such  cases. 

"  New  London  Aug*  25,  1786 
Rev°  Sir. 

I  fully  intended  when  I  was  at  Norwich  to  have  called  on 
you,  but  was  prevented  by  the  business  in  which  I  was  neces- 
sarily engaged,  and  must  therefore  do  by  letter  what  I  then 

5.  Berrian's  History  of  Trinity  Church,  pp.  183-4. 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  383 

purposed  to  have  done,  which  was  to  inform  you,  that  your 
conduct,  more  particularly  of  late,  has  given  great  offence  to 
several  of  the  Clergy  in  the  State,  and  that  they  greatly  de- 
sire an  interview  with  you,  that  they  may  know  in  what  light 
they  are  to  consider  you  for  the  future.  I  am  therefore  in 
compliance  with  my  duty  to  request  and  require,  which  I 
hereby  do,  your  attendance  at  the  Convocation  at  Derby,  at 
the  house  of  the  Rev^  Mr.  Richard  Mansfield,  on  the  twen- 
tieth day  of  September  next,  to  see  whether  mutual  explana- 
tions may  not  remove  that  offence  which  your  proceedings 
at  Wallingford  and  Norwich  have,  we  conceive,  justly  given 
to  them  and  myself. 

I  am  Rev^  Sir  your  affect:  Bro'*  and 

hum^  servt. 
S.  Bp.  Epl.  Chch  Connect." 

The  attendance  of  Dr.  Tyler  having  been  unavoidably  pre- 
vented, he  is  again  addressed,  as  follows: 

"  N.  L.  Oct.  19.  1786 
Dear  Sir 

You  will  recollect  when  I  lately  saw  you  here,  I  observed 
to  you  that  your  case  must  necessarily  come  under  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Convocation.  Your  absence  was  much 
regretted:  but  as  it  appeared  to  be  unavoidable,  they  agreed 
that  one  or  two  of  your  brethren,  should  with  me,  try  whether 
by  conference  they  could  prevail  with  you  to  put  matters  on 
such  a  footing  as  that  they  might  still  keep  up  their  connec- 
tion with  you.  And  I  yesterday  received  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Jarvis  informing  me  that  he  with  Mr.  Hubbard  would  be  at 
my  house  on  Tuesday  next,  but  that  they  could  not  go  to  Nor- 
wich, because  they  should  be  obliged  to  return  the  same  week. 
I  have  therefore  to  desire  that  you  would  meet  them  here  on 
tuesday  evening  or  Wednesday  morning  at  furtherest,  as  their 


384  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

only  business  is  on  your  account.  I  hope  Mrs.  T's  situation 
will  permit  your  leaving  her  for  a  day  or  two  without  incon- 
venience; and  if  you  should  choose  to  have  the  Church  War- 
dens of  your  Church  with  you,  I  shall  not  only  have  no  objec- 
tion, but  shall  be  glad  to  see  them.  Please  to  present  my  re- 
gards to  Mrs.  Tyler,  &  believe  me  to  be 

Your  affectionate  huml.  Serv^ 

S.  Bp.  Connect." 

These  letters  of  course  are  not  to  suggest  any  reflection 
upon  Dr.  Tyler,  but  only  to  show  the  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
difficulty  in  which  for  some  reason  or  other  he  appears  for  a 
time  to  have  been  involved. 

The  exercise  of  discipline  was  obviously  not  neglected,  al- 
though tempered  with  mildness,  patience  and  charity;  and 
there  is  so  far  as  I  am  aware  but  one  instance  in  which  it  ap- 
pears to  have  been  carried  to  the  extent  of  punishment.  The 
Rev.  Mr.  James  Sayre,  after  all  efforts  to  bring  him  to  a  right 
mind  had  proved  unavailing,  is  at  last,  by  formal  pronounce- 
ment, not  only  forbidden  to  perform  any  Ecclesiastical  Offices, 
but  is  declared  to  be  *'  out  of  the  unity  and  Communion  of  the 
Church."  This  pronouncement  was  by  printed  proclamation 
of  *'  Samuel,  by  divine  permission.  Bishop  of  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island,  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island ;  "  and  signed  "  Samuel,  Bp.  Connect,  and  Rho. 
Island ;  "  "  Done  at  New  Milf ord,  in  Connecticut,  this  25**^ 
day  of  September,  1793." — the  copy  now  before  me  being 
marked  in  writing  as  "  Redde  in  St.  James  Chc'h  New  Lon- 
don by  Mr.  Ch^  Seabury  on  Sunday  the  13*^  Oct.  being  the 
20*^  Sunday  after  Trinity  1793,  after  sermon  in  the  after- 
noon." 

The  Revd.  Mr.  Sayre  had  been  at  one  time  settled  in  the 
Church  at  Newport,  R.  I.,  and  had  been  succeeded  by  the 


THE  DECLINE  OF   LIFE.  385 

Rev.  Wm.  Smith.®  The  Parish  apparently  had  been  divided 
in  sentiment,  and  some  who  had  been  in  favour  of  Mr.  Sayre 
were  indisposed  to  accept  Mr.  Smith.  Messrs.  Gardiner  and 
Freebody  having  presented  their  views  to  Bishop  Seabury, 
he  endeavours  to  bring  them  to  a  better  mind ;  and  his  letter  to 
Mr.  Gardiner  of  April  13,  1790,  may  show  his  attitude,  not 
only  toward  them,  but  in  regard  to  principles  of  order  in  the 
Church,  and  is  besides  a  good  example  of  speaking  the  truth 
in  love.  Referring  to  the  hearty  desire  for  peace  and  unity 
professed  by  Mr.  Gardiner,  the  Bishop  says  "  Indeed  I  should 
expect  this  temper  from  you:  I  pray  God  this  temper  may 
govern  your  whole  congregation.  But  my  dear  Sir,  I  do  not 
see  the  propriety  of  Mr.  Smith's  making  the  first  advances, 
nor  how  he  can  be  said  to  have  caused  the  division  among  you. 
He  came  to  Newport  with  as  great  a  majority  as  could  be  ex- 

6,  The  Revd.  William  Smith  above  mentioned  (not  to  be  confused 
with  the  Revd  Dr.  William  Smith  frequently  referred  to  in  these 
pages)  "was  a  Scotsman,  and  possessed  Scottish  Orders.  His  first 
charge  in  America  was  Trinity  Church,  Oxford,  together  with  All 
Saints,  Pequestan  (afterward  Lower  Dublin),  both  parishes  then  near 
(but  now  included  within  the  limits  of)  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  He 
remained  there  from  January  i,  1785,  until  his  appointment  to  Step- 
ney, Maryland,  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year.  On  July  7,  1787,  he 
became  Rector  of  St.  Paul's,  Narragansett,  R.  I.,  and  on  January  28, 
1790,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Newport,  R.  I."  ("The  Consecration 
of  the  Eucharist,"  by  the  Revd  Henry  Riley  Gummey,  D.  D.,  p.  223, 
note).  The  Rev<i.  William  Smith  was  a  man  of  most  profound  and 
elegant  scholarship.  He  is  entitled  to  the  credit  of  having  habitually 
used  the  Scottish  Prayer  of  Consecration  from  his  first  coming  to  this 
Country ;  and  his  intelligent  appreciation  of  its  history  and  import 
made  him  eager  to  welcome  and  set  forward  by  all  means  in  his 
power  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  spirit 
of  his  agreement  with  the  Scottish  Bishops.  The  letter  of  Mr.  Smith 
to  Bishop  Seabury,  cited  in  Dr.  Gummey's  work  above  named,  pp. 
223-227,  with  the  author's  comments  upon  that  letter,  are  not  the  least 
interesting  part  of  that  most  valuable  book. 


386  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

pccted  in  the  divided  state  of  your  Church;  for  that  it  was 
divided  and  torn  under  Mr.  Sayre  you  must  know.  And  I 
cannot  for  my  Hfe  see  why  you  and  Mr.  Freebody  who  were 
so  justly  anxious  for  the  peace  of  the  Church  then,  should  be 
so  inattentive  to  it  now.  Peace  and  unity  are  Christian  du- 
ties and  just  as  necessary  whether  Mr.  Sayre  or  Air.  Smith 
be  your  IMinister ;  and  it  is  the  same  and  as  great  a  sin  to  rend 
and  divide  the  Church,  and  destroy  its  peace  under  Mr.  Smith, 
as  it  was  under  Mr.  Sayre.  For  who  is  Mr.  Sayre?  and  who 
is  Mr.  Smith?  but  Ministers  of  Christ  and  Stezvards  of  the 
Mysteries  of  Godf  The  former  was,  the  other  now  is  so  to 
your  congregation.  You  may  like  Mr.  Sayre  better  than  Mr. 
Smith  —  you  may  suppose  him  to  be  a  better  man;  but  holi- 
ness of  person  comes  not  here  under  consideration  —  holiness 
of  Character  is  what  you  are  to  regard,  and  in  this  respect 
they  are  both  equal  —  they  are  both  Ministers  of  Christ. 
Which  is  the  better  man  is  a  matter  of  mere  opinion,  and  you 
may  be  deceived.  And  besides  God  has  not  made  you  their 
judge  —  they  are  God's  servants  and  to  their  own  master  they 
stand  or  fall.  Your  opinion  of  them  is  out  of  the  question  — 
your  estimation  of  the  one  or  censure  of  the  other  are  for- 
eign from  the  point.  While  Mr.  Sayre  was  your  Minister 
you  did  well  in  abiding  with  him  in  worship  and  ordinances. 
But  does  your  Church  cease  to  be  the  Church  of  Christ  be- 
cause you  have  got  another  Minister?  Or  do  you  act  wisely  in 
cutting  yourself  off  from  the  worship  and  Communion  of 
Chrisfs  Church,  because  you  do  not  like  your  present  Min- 
ister as  well  as  you  did  the  former  one? 

Excuse  me  if  I  say  that  I  apprehend  that  the  objection  to 
the  Consecration  prayer  which  Mr.  Smith  uses  is  a  very  weak 
one,  and  is  owing  more  to  humour  than  to  a  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  the  Church  of  England.  It  must  be  a  strange  con- 
science that  cannot  communicate  under  its  use.  The  altera- 
tion which  you  advert  to  I  must  suppose  is  agreeable  to  you. 


THE   DECLINE  OF   LIFE.  387 

It  was  made  for  those  Church  people  who  were  too  weak  to 
digest  strong  meat,  but  must  be  fed  with  milkJ  I  think  the 
alteration  for  the  worse,  but  not  to  be  an  essential  one,  as 
All  Glory  is  ascribed  to  God  —  the  Elements  are  blessed  with 
thanks  given  —  there  is  an  oblation  of  them  made  to  the 
Almighty  Father  —  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  invoked 
to  sanctify  them  —  and  all  is  concluded  in  the  name,  and 
thro'  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  —  all  of  which  are  wanting  in 
the  English  Office.  Indeed  the  present  Consecration  prayer 
in  the  English  book  is  not  the  original  prayer  of  that  Church 
—  It  was  altered  to  its  present  state  to  please  the  Presby- 
terians, and  in  hopes  of  bringing  them  back  to  the  Church, 
but  the  experiment  failed. 

With  regard  to  the  number  of  communicants  under  ^Ir. 
Sayre  I  have  no  right  to  decide.  I  never  saw  more  than  60 
at  the  Altar.  But  I  beg  to  ask,  has  no  influence  been  used 
to  keep  communicants  away  since  Mr.  Smith  has  been  with 
you?  Has  not  your  example  and  Mr.  Freebody's  been  a 
stumbling  block  to  others  in  the  way  of  their  duty?  These 
are  serious  considerations,  and  I  hope  will  be  regarded  by  you. 
Indeed,  my  dear  Sir,  you  seem  not  to  apprehend  the  fatal  con- 
sequence of  your  present  conduct,  both  to  yourself  and  others. 
From  what  I  have  observed  in  you,  you  are  one  of  the  last 
men  I  should  have  suspected  of  acting  as  you  have  done  in 
straying  away  from  the  Church,  and  excluding  yourself  from 
her  communion.  I  have  expressed  myself  freely,  because  I 
hope  to  prevail  with  you  to  return  to  what  appears  to  me  to 
be  evidently  your  duty.  Was  I  in  your  place,  I  would  submit 
the  matter  to  the  Vestry  and  be  absolutely  governed  by  their 
determination  and  I  would  tell  them  I  was  determined  to  be 
so.     It  will  give  you  more  satisfaction  in  the  end,  than  it  will 

7.  The  alteration  referred  to  was,  it  is  conjectured,  the  change  made 
of  the  words  "  may  become  the  body  and  blood,  &c.,"  into  "  that  we 
receiving    .    .     .    may  be  partakers  of  his    .    .    .    body  and  blood." 


388  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

do  to  carry  your  point  at  present.  Tho'  you  may  have  had  no 
voice  in  Mr.  Smith's  election  yet  he  is  your  minister  —  as 
much  so  as  any  one  can  be  by  election,  for  in  elections  the 
majority  must  decide.  With  regard  to  the  legality  of  his  elec- 
tion I  can  say  nothing  unless  I  knew  more  of  your  settled 
rules  and  customs.  And  even  supposing  these  to  have  been 
infringed,  Mr.  Smith  is  still  your  Minister  till  he  shall  be 
regularly  removed.  The  determination  cannot  rest  with  one 
or  two,  or  any  small  number  —  on  nothing  less  than  the  power 
which  placed  him  there,  or  some  power  supreme. 

Let  me  beg  you  to  think  of  these  things,  and  I  hope  I  shall 
soon  have  the  happiness  of  knowing  that  both  you  and  Mr. 
Freebody  have  returned  to  the  peace  and  unity  of  Christ's 
Church.  My  regards  attend  Mrs.  Gardiner.  Accept  my  best 
wishes  —  God  direct  and  bless  you  — 

Your  affec*^  friend  and  very  humble  serv*. 

S.  Bp.  Connect." 

The  persons  concerned  in  the  difficulties  mentioned  in  the 
foregoing  letter  were  Messrs.  Samuel  and  Thomas  Freebody 
and  Benjamin  Gardiner.  Two  previous  letters  had  been  writ- 
ten to  them  by  Bishop  Seabury,  copies  of  which  are  in  the 
letter  book,  and  have  been  printed  by  Dr.  Beardsley.  The 
copy  of  this  letter  not  being  in  the  letter  book,  but  on  a  sepa- 
rate sheet,  was  probably  overlooked  by  him.  It  is  perhaps 
the  best  of  the  three;  and  at  any  rate  may  serve  to  complete 
the  account  which  he  has  given.* 

The  following  brief  letter  seems  worthy  of  a  place  in  this 
miscellany,  as  illustrative  of  Bishop  Seabury's  continuance 
of  affectionate  relations  with  his  father's  family.  It  has  been 
noted  in  an  earlier  chapter  that  the  Bishop's  mother  died  in 
his  infancy,  and  that  the  place  of  mother  was  supplied  to 

8.  Beardsley's  life  of  Bp.  Seabury,  pp.  391-395- 


THE    DECLINE   OF    LIFE.  389 

him  by  his   father's  second  wife      The  letter   referred  to  is 
from  her,  and  is  as  follows: 

"  North  Hempstead  July  the  15,  1787 
Rev°  and  Dear  Sir: 

I  do  myself  the  pleasure  to  write  to  you  and  let  you  know 
that  your  pupil  Mr.  Daniel  Whitehead  Kissam  is  become 
your  Nephew.  He  was  married  to  Miss  Elizabeth  Tread- 
well  on  the  26  of  June.  They  desire  their  most  humble  com- 
plyments  to  be  presented  to  you  and  beg  your  blessing.  The 
family  here  are  all  well  and  I  hope  you  enjoy  a  large  share 
of  health.  As  to  my  own  part  I  have  not  had  any  severe 
attack  of  the  Rheumatism  since  last  Fall  but  I  feel  continual 
aches  and  pains  and  I  suppose  I  shall  while  I  continue  in 
this  state  of  tryals.  And  I  beg  your  prayers  that  I  may  so 
pass  through  things  temporal  that  I  lose  not  things  eternal. 
Your  brother  Adam's  family  are  well  I  believe  though  I  have 
not  seen  any  of  them  lately.  I  was  in  hopes  I  should  have 
seen  Mrs.  Taylor  and  Mrs.  Campbell  here  before  this :  ^  I 
hope  they  will  not  return  without  seeing  me.  My  best  re- 
gards attend  all  your  dear  children.  I  hear  your  brother 
David  was  in  New  York  about  a  week  agoe  but  I  have  not 
seen  him  as  yet.  I  wish  you  all  the  happiness  this  dull  world 
can  give  you  and  must  conclude  by  telling  you  that  I  am  your 

affectionate  Mother. 
Pray  write." 

Bishop  Seabury's  work  in  the  development  of  the  Church 
in  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut  belongs  to  the  history  of  that 
Diocese;  and  his  work  in  the  parish  of  St.  James,  belongs  to 
the  history  of  that  parish.  It  is  not  practicable  to  extend 
these  memoirs  by  any  account  of  either ;  nor  to  do  anything 
further  than  to  illustrate  certain  personal  characteristics  by 

9.  Two  of  Bishop   Seabury's  daughters. 


39^  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

incidental  actions  in  the  line  of  duty,  whether  diocesan  or 
parochial. 

As  an  instance  of  such  illustration,  there  appears  among  the 
papers  a  brief  correspondence,  of  the  year  1788,  which  tells 
a  sad  story  of  misguided  affection  and  consequent  sorrow, 
and  resulting  temptation  to  crime,  apparently  averted  by  the 
Bishop's  counsel.  Hardly  any  incident  could  more  plainly 
reveal  the  truly  pastoral  spirit  of  the  man,  than  does  his 
dealing  with  this  distressing  case.  It  reminds  one  of  the 
gracious,  compassionate,  hopeful  tone  of  the  Saviour's  — 
"  Go  and  sin  no  more." 

A  woman  unknown  to  him  writes  him.  May  23^,  of  the  fall 
of  her  daughter,  who,  driven  to  despair,  was  contemplating 
suicide,  unless  she  could  procure  deliverance  from  shameful 
exposure  by  unlawful  means;  and  in  most  pathetic  terms, 
beseeches  his  counsel  in  her  sore  distress,  asking  him  to  leave 
his  answer  in  a  designated  spot,  where  she  can  find  it  with- 
out being  discovered ;  and  thus  writes  the  man  of  God  to  her : 

"  May  24'^ 
'  I  require  and  charge  thee,  O  woman,  whosoever  thou 
art,  as  thou  wilt  answer  it  at  the  dreadful  day  of  judgment 
when  the  secret  of  all  hearts  shall  be  disclosed,  that  you  use 
no  means  to  procure  miscarriage  to  your  unhappy  daughter. 
It  will  be  wilful  deliberate  murder.  And  I  charge  thee,  O 
daughter,  to  use  no  violence  to  thy  own  life,  nor  to  the  life 
of  thy  unborn  infant.  Self  murder  is  the  worst  of  all  crimes ; 
and  it  allows  no  room  for  repentance.  Has  the  shame  of 
men  more  weight  with  you  than  the  fear  of  God?  I  pity 
you  both  from  my  heart ;  and  would  do  any  lawful  thing 
to  conceal  your  shame,  and  heal  your  sorrow.  But  let  me 
save  you  from  the  dreadful  destruction  that  is  before  you. 
God  sees  you ;  and  God  will  judge  you.  Let  not  one  sin, 
a   sin  of  infirmity  only,  tempt  you  to   such   foul  and  black 


THE   DECLINE   OF    LIFE.  39I 

crimes.  I  have  no  curiosity  to  know  who  you  are;  but  I 
wish  to  advise  you;  I  wish  to  comfort  you;  I  wish  to  lead 
you  to  repentance,  that  you  may  find  the  mercy  and  forgive- 
ness of  God.  If  you  think  I  can  be  of  any  service  to  you, 
I  promise  to  keep  your  secret,  and  make  no  unfriendly  use  of 
it.  But  I  conjure  you  by  the  love  of  Christ,  let  not  a  great  sin, 
be  committed  to  hide  a  smaller  one.  May  God's  grace  be 
with  you  and  keep  you  in  his  fear.  Take  kindly  what  I 
have  written,  for  it  is  only  intended  for  your  good.  I  shall 
pray  for  you ;  and  do  you  pray  to  God  for  yourselves,  that 
he  would  look  in  mercy  upon  you,  and  deliver  you  from  this 
temptation  of  the  evil  one.  Believe  me  your  affectionate 
friend, 

S— " 

The  good  result  of  the  counsels  of  the  foregoing  letter 
may  be  inferred  from  the  following  brief  response  which 
has  been  preserved  with  it,  and  which  is  apparently  from  the 
daughter  herself,  though  of  course  no  name  is  appended  either 
to  it,  or  to  that  of  the  mother : 

"  Saturday  Evening  the  24*^  of  May  1788 
Kind  Sir 

The  great  and  mighty  God  of  Heaven  has  made  thee  an 
instrument  of  preventing  me  from  committing  one  of  the 
blackest  of  crimes,  for  which  I  humbly  thank  my  God  and 
thee,  promising  that  I  will  obey  thee  in  every  shape,  which 
thou  shalt  see  at  the  coming  of  the  great  day  when  we  must 
all  render  an  account  for  the  deeds  done  in  the  body. 

I  thank  you  for  your  kind  offer  of  assistance  but  a  few 
months  absence  must  accomplish  the  matter.  So  I  end  with 
promising  to  render  due  obedience. 

I  am  Sir 

Your  eternal   friend — " 


392  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP   SEABURY. 

The  same  intense  earnestness  and  profound  solemnity  which 
characterize  this  brief  but  significant  paper  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  pervade  also  the  pages  of  his  Journal,  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  often  made;  and  indeed,  appear  to  have  per- 
meated his  whole  life.  There  is  always  evidence  of  his 
abiding  consciousness  that  he  was  not  his  own,  but  that  he 
belonged  wholly  to  God,  in  whose  presence,  and  under  whose 
fatherly  protection  and  guidance,  he  lived  and  moved  and 
had  his  being.  Such  habitual  devotion,  and  the  utter  sim- 
plicity of  the  faith  and  love  out  of  which  it  grew,  belong 
to  a  type  of  Christian  character  which  the  world  knows  little 
of,  and  which  the  Church,  one  is  sometimes  tempted  to  think, 
has  well  nigh  forgotten.  But  it  has  existed,  and  doubtless 
still  does  exist;  though  to  describe  it  now  would  be  but  de- 
scribing the  fashion  of  a  kind  of  life  which  some  of  us  can 
well  remember  to  have  been  brought  up  in,  but  which  few, 
alas,  can  be  conscious  of  having  continued  to  keep.  I  feel 
myself  unequal  to  the  task,  and  shall  not  essay  it:  but  no  ac- 
count of  the  Bishop's  life  would  be  complete  without  the 
recognition  of  the  characteristics  which  have  been  noted, 
and  of  which  the  Journal  and  other  records  afford  so  much 
evidence.  Yet  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  these  character- 
istics at  all  obscured  the  cheerfulness  and  brightness  of  temper 
and  demeanor  which  were  natural  to  him.  Quite  the  contrary 
seems  to  have  been  the  case ;  and  there  are  many  stories  which 
show  the  easy,  kindly  and  agreeable  conversational  habit 
which  he  had ;  and  the  keen  perception  of  humor,  and  quick 
flashes  of  wit  by  which  his  conversation  was  often  enlivened. 

Quotations  from  the  Journal  have  already  been,  and  per- 
haps will  yet  be  made:  and  these  may  suffice  to  illustrate  the 
tone  of  the  whole.  It  is,  as  has  been  observed,  a  fragment  — 
complete  in  itself,  but  only  relating  the  visitations  and 
journeys  of  a  period  of  somewhat  more  than  four  years,  from 
May  1791,  to  October  1795.     In  that  period  there  is  the  rec- 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  393 

ord  of  fifteen  journeys,  with  the  account  of  the  distance 
of  six  thousand,  six  hundred  and  sixty-six  miles  travelled; 
and  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  eighty  persons  confirmed ; 
and  constant  mention  of  Eucharistic  celebrations,  and  sermons 
preached,  with  several  baptisms,  and  various  ordinations  to 
the  Diaconate  and  the  Priesthood.  The  journeys  of  that  day, 
it  need  not  be  said,  were  not  the  journeys  of  modern  luxury 
and  convenience.  Sailing  vessels  for  water  journeys,  and 
for  the  land  journeys,  the  stage  coach  and  the  post  chariot 
sometimes,  but  for  the  most  part  nothing  more  luxurious 
than  the  ''  sulky "  of  frequent  mention ;  varied  often  with 
fifteen  or  twenty  miles  of  horseback  riding,  which  must  have 
revived  the  Bishop's  remembrance  of  the  many  hard  rides 
of  ante-bellum  days.  This  sulky  was,  however,  probably  not 
strictly  such,  since  the  Bishop's  daughter  Maria,  and  his  sons 
Edward  and  Charles,  and  sometimes  one  or  other  of  his 
Clergy,  are  frequently  said  to  have  accompanied  him  in  his 
journeys.  It  was  possibly  more  like  what  was  sometimes 
called  a  Gig;  and  bore  about  as  much  relation  to  the  coach 
which  "  Peter  Parley  "  attributes  to  him,^°  as  his  modest  par- 
sonage bore  to  an  Episcopal  Palace.  His  sulky  and  harness 
are  appraised  in  the  Inventory  above  mentioned  at  £12  —  and 
his  horse  is  rated  at  the  same  figure:  and  princeliness  like 
this  he  had  not  always  been  able  to  afford;  as  would  ap- 
pear from  one  of  his  earlier  letters  to  Bishop  White,  in 
which  he  excuses  himself  from  a  journey  to  Philadelphia 
as  one  beyond  his  present  means  to  undertake,  since  at  that 
time  he  was  not  even  the  owner  of  a  horse. 

Notwithstanding  his  labours  in  season,  out  of  season,  dur- 
ing the  period  which  it  has  now  been  attempted  to  describe; 
and  notwithstanding  all  the  discouragements  by  which  he  was 
oppressed,  the  Bishop  found  time  not  only  for  the  writing  of 

10.  Shea's  life  and  Epoch  of  Hamilton,  p.  308,  note. 


394  MEMOIR    OF    r.ISITOP    SEABURY. 

many  sermons,  but  also  for  the  preparation  and  publication 
of  several  works,  all  of  interest,  and  some  of  permanent,  and 
indeed  of  inestimable  value ;  and  with  a  brief  account  of  these 
we  may  draw  to  an  end  this  somewhat  desultory  chapter,  and 
make  way  for  a  view  of  the  closing  scenes  of  the  life  which 
we  have  been  considering. 

The  Bishop,  it  is  perhaps  hardly  necessary  to  say,  was  not, 
properly  speaking,  a  literary  man.  He  wrote  well,  but  litera- 
ture was  not  his  profession :  and  he  put  his  writings  into  print, 
not  for  remuneration  to  himself,  nor  for  the  amusement  or 
instruction  of  the  reading  world  in  general,  but  perhaps  in 
maintenance  of  important  principles  endangered  at  the  time, 
or  perhaps  in  self-defense;  or,  again,  from  the  desire  of  put- 
ting into  form  of  comparative  permanence  thoughts  that  it 
seemed  necessary  to  preserve  from  being  overlooked  or  for- 
gotten. Writing  was  with  him  always  a  means  to  an  end,  and 
not  an  end  in  itself.  Beside  those  publications  which  have 
been  already  noted  in  the  former  part  of  his  life,  there  appear 
to  have  belonged  to  the  time  of  his  Episcopate  some  fifteen 
works,  which  were  either  pamphlets  or  small  books,  the  larg- 
est and  most  important  of  these  having  been  the  two  volumes 
of  discourses  published  in  1793.  In  a  bibliographical  sketch 
contributed  to  the  American  Church  Review,  in  July  1885,  a 
detailed  account  of  all  his  publications  known  to  the  writer 
has  been  given;  and  the  purpose  here  is  to  call  attention  to 
some  of  the  most  important  of  these. 

In  the  year  1790,  he  published  without  his  name  a  tract  of 
55  pages  duodecimo  entitled  "  An  Address  to  the  Ministers 
and  Congregations  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Independent  Per- 
suasions in  the  United  States  of  America.  By  a  member  of 
the  Episcopal  Church." 

In  1791,  he  published  a  discourse  delivered  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  duty,  but  which  attracted  such  an  extraordinary 


THE    DECLINE    OF    LIFE.  395 

amount  of  hostile  criticism  as  to  make  it  worthy  of  particular 
description.     The  title  page  is  as  follows : 

"  A  Discourse  delivered  in  St.  John's  Church,  in  Ports- 
mouth, New  Hampshire,  at  the  conferring  the  Order  of 
Priesthood  on  the  Rev.  Robert  Fowle  A.  M.  of  Holderness 
on  the  festival  of  St.  Peter,  1791.  By  the  Right  Rev.  Samuel 
Seabury  D.  D.  Bishop  of  Connecticut. 

Am  I  therefore  become  your  enemy,  because  I  tell  you  the 
truth?  Gal.  iv.  16. 

—  the  devil  —  is   a   liar  and   the   father   of  it. 

St.   John,  viii.  44. 

—  the  Church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth.  I  Tim.  iii.  15. 

Printed  at  Boston  by  Isaiah  Thomas  and  Ebenezer  T. 
Andrews,  Faust's  Statue,  No.  45  Newbury  Street,  For  George 
Jerry  Osborne  jun.     Printer,  in  Portsmouth. 

MDCCXCI." 
[22  pages.     Octavo.] 

The  somewhat  peculiar  selections  which  adorn  this  page 
may  be  supposed  to  refer  not  so  much  to  the  discourse,  as  to 
the  hostile  criticism  above  mentioned. 

In  his  Journal,  writing  between  the  delivery  of  the  dis- 
course and  its  publication.  Bishop  Seabury  remarks : 

"  While  I  was  at  Boston,  Mr.  Osborne's  paper,  of  Ports- 
mouth, July  6,  and  Mr.  Russell's  of  Boston,  of  the  same  date 
I  believe,  accused  me  of  saying  in  the  sermon  at  Portsmouth, 
'  That  the  belief  of  the  truth  spoken  by  one  not  inducted  into 
the  priestly  office  in  an  Episcopal  form  is  not  the  Faith  of 
God  or  a  Divine  Faith ! '  The  sermon  I  suppose  will  soon  be 
public,  and  will  speak  for  itself.  One  position  I  shall  enter 
here  from  the  Portsmouth  paper,  because  of  its  extraordi- 


39^  MEMOIR   OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

nary  tendency:  'If  a  Devil  should  deliver  a  good  Gospel 
sermon  shall  we  disbelieve  because  the  preacher  is  a  devil  and 
not  a  Church  Priest  ?  '  Again :  *  I  am  as  much  bound  to  be- 
lieve the  truth  spoken  by  his  Plutonic  majesty,  as  I  am  to  be- 
lieve the  same  truth  when  delivered  by  his  Lordship  of  York, 
or  his  Holiness  of  Rome.'  To  expose  the  nonsense  and  pro- 
faneness  of  these  assertions  needs  not  a  word.  They  speak 
for  themselves,  and  evidently  show  what  spirit  they  are  of." 

In  his  "  Advertisement  "  to  the  discourse  the  Bishop  says : 
**  The  misrepresentation  of  a  passage  in  the  following  sermon, 
and  the  publick  abuse  of  the  author,  are  the  reasons  for  its 
publication.  As  far  as  it  goes,  it  contains  his  deliberate  senti- 
ments on  the  subject,  which  he  has  no  disposition  to  retract. 
He  has  expressed  them  freely,  because  he  thought  it  his 
duty;  and  because  in  a  free  country  he  supposed  he  had  a 
right  to  do  so.  And  he  still  hopes  he  has  as  undoubted  a 
privilege  to  explain  and  establish  the  Episcopacy  of  the 
Church  as  others  claim  to  revile  and  destroy  it.  Should  any 
one  be  disposed  to  nibble  at  particular  expressions  he  is 
heartily  welcome:  the  principles,  he  flatters  himself,  will  abide 
the  trial  of  reason  and  Scripture.  Nonsense,  he  knows,  will 
have  its  paroxysms,  and  that  they  will  sometimes  be  violently 
abusive,  especially  when  the  secrecy  of  a  newspaper  can 
effectually  conceal  an  author  in  venting  his  ignorance  and 
malice.  The  blessed  Redeemer  was  reviled  as  a  drunkard  — 
the  holy  Baptist  as  a  demoniac  —  St.  Paul  as  a  babbler  — 
they  were  defamed  —  made  as  the  filth  of  the  world  —  the  off 
scouring  of  all  things  —  and  by  whom  ?  In  such  company  it 
is  the  author's  highest  honour  to  be  found,  suffering  reproach 
as  they  did  in  the  cause  of  truth?  " 

In  the  same  year,  Bishop  Seabury  republished  a  Catechism 
published  by  Dr.  George  Innes,  consecrated  Bishop  of 
Brechin,  in  Scotland,  in  1778.  An  abridgment  of  this  re- 
publication was  published  in  New  York,  as  recommended  by 


THE   DECLINE   OF    LIFE.  397 

the  Bishop  and  Clergy,  in  1802,  but  without  mention  of  the 
source  from  which  it  was  compiled  or  the  compiler.  This 
became  known  as  the  Old  New  York  Diocesan  Catechism, 
and  went  through  various  phases  of  publication  until  the  ii*^ 
edition  was  reprinted  for  the  Diocese  of  Maryland  by  its 
Bishop,  the  Right  Rev^.  Wm.  R.  Whittingham,  D.  D.,  who  had 
been  connected  with  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  and  professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary. 
The  same  learned  Editor,  in  1851,  published  a  new  edition 
of  his  first  reprint,  and  added  to  it  the  parts  omitted  from 
the  original  in  the  abridgment;  and  from  this  second  reprint 
the  statements  here  made  in  respect  to  the  tract  have  been 
drawn.  Bishop  Whittingham's  object  in  the  care  with  which 
he  collated  the  abridgment  with  the  original  was,  as  he  re- 
marks, "  to  show  the  substantial  agreement  of  both  Cate- 
chisms ;  the  constant  character  of  that  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
York,  through  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century,  in  eleven  edi- 
tions; the  pains  bestowed  upon  it  in  that  time,  and  material 
changes  in  its  form,  but  in  form  only,  and  the  consequent 
certainty,  that  from  1790  to  1824,  the  doctrine  of  the  First 
Bishop  of  our  Church  continued  to  be  the  avowed  and  of- 
ficially recommended  doctrine  of  its  greatest  Diocese^ 

This  reference  to  the  history  of  the  tract  is  extremely  sig- 
nificant, and  points  to  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury's  the- 
ology not  only  in  Connecticut  but  also  in  New  York,  where, 
during  the  period  indicated,  Bishop  Moore  and  Bishop  Ho- 
bart  were,  in  the  retirement  of  Bishop  Provoost  from  active 
duty,  successively  the  responsible  heads  of  the  Diocese;  and 
moreover  in  the  Diocese  of  Maryland  under  the  Episcopate 
of  Bishop  Whittingham  whose  name  was  a  strong  tower  for 
all  who  sought  the  establishment  of  Church  principles.  Why 
Bishop  Whittingham  speaks  of  1824  as  if  it  were  the  end  of 
the  period  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  "  First  Bishop  "  con- 
tinued  to   be   the    officially    recommended   doctrine   of    New 


398  MEMOIR   OF   BISHOP    SEABURY. 

York,  I  do  not  know.  Possibly  he  had  in  mind  only  the 
Catechism  as  the  exponent  of  that  doctrine:  but  as  to  the 
doctrine  itself,  no  one  who  knows  the  theology  of  Bishop 
Seabury,  and  that  of  Bishop  Hobart,  can  fail  to  observe  the 
substantial  unity  of  doctrine  in  both.  Nor  is  it  other  than 
that  which  might  be  expected,  that  Bishop  Hobart,  who  in 
the  earlier  part  of  his  Episcopate,  for  a  considerable  period 
between  the  decease  of  Bishop  Jarvis,  and  the  accession  of 
Bishop  Brownell,  to  the  Episcopate  of  Connecticut,  performed 
the  duty  of  a  Bishop  in  that  Diocese,  should  have  become 
familiar  with  the  Seabury  traditions,  and  thus  have  been  the 
better  able  to  use  and  apply  them  in  his  own  robust  and  well- 
balanced  teachings,  which  gained  him  so  much  reputation, 
not  only  in  New  York  but  throughout  the  Church,  as,  for  the 
time  being  at  least,  somewhat  to  obscure  the  recognition  of 
the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury,  which,  after  all,  lay  very 
near  the  foundation  of  the  whole  structure  of  Church  doc- 
trine in  this  Country.  One  need  not  ignore,  much  less  dis- 
parage, the  sound  theological  learning,  and  clear  and  strong 
expositions  of  such  learning,  which  contributed  to  the  sus- 
taining of  Church  principles  by  very  many  others,  in  the 
United  States,  if  he  is  nevertheless  persuaded,  that  the  leading 
and  controlling  influence  in  the  settlement  of  those  principles 
in  the  minds  of  American  Churchmen  resulted  from  the 
systematic  embodiment  of  the  great  traditions  of  the  Church 
in  the  teaching  of  Bishop  Seabury,  supported  and  enforced, 
as  they  always  were,  by  the  demonstration  of  their  entire 
conformity  both  to  right  reason,  and  to  the  authority  of  the 
Divine  revelation  as  contained  in  Holy  Scripture.  And  this 
influence,  enhanced  as  it  was  by  the  force  and  genius  of 
Hobart,  and  the  faithful  labours  of  many  others,  brought  it 
to  pass  that  when  England  was  convulsed  in  the  early  middle 
years  of  the  nineteenth  century  with  the  shock  of  the  novel- 
ties of  the  Tractarian  movement  in  Oxford,  there  appeared 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  399 

to  the  Churchmen  in  this  Country  to  be  nothing  new  or  strange 
in  this  movement,  but  only  that  to  which  they  had  always 
been  accustomed  as  the  simple  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  To  that  school  in  the  Church  which  in  its  high 
estimate  of  vital  piety  had  been  disposed  to  undervalue  the 
sacramental  system  as  conducive  rather  to  formalism  than  to 
true  personal  religion,  the  Tractarian  developments  were  the 
demonstration  of  what  they  had  always  claimed  to  be,  the 
natural  outcome  of  principles  which  they  had  been  prone  to 
regard  as  of  soul  destroying  tendency.  And  to  those  also, 
to  whom  the  Faith  and  Order  of  the  Church  were  the  divine 
provision  for  the  fostering  of  true  personal  religion,  such  de- 
velopments were  nothing  new,  but  only  the  recognition  of 
that  for  which  they  had  all  along  contended.  And,  so  far  as 
Bishop  Seabury's  influence  in  the  promotion  of  this  persua- 
sion was  concerned,  while  it  is  traceable  to  his  whole  course 
of  life  and  teaching,  it  is  particularly  and  eminently  exempli- 
fied in  his  published  discourses.  In  those  discourses  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  that  teaching  which  came  so  promi- 
nently forward  toward  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
in  England,  are  all  contained:  and  there  is  good  reason  to 
believe,  not  only,  as  has  been  said,  that  this  teaching  made  the 
really  sound  part  of  the  Tractarian  doctrine  familiar  to 
American  Churchmen  before  it  was  broached  at  Oxford;  but 
also  that  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury's  sermons  was  not 
without  an  effect  in  the  production  of  the  Oxford  movement 
itself.  This,  after  all,  is  but  to  say  that  the  Oxford  move- 
ment was  only  the  result  of  an  effort  to  make  real  and  practi- 
cal the  great  tradition  of  faith  and  order  which  had  come  to 
be  looked  upon  as  the  theory  of  an  elder  day,  but  of  which, 
nevertheless,  consistent  testimony  had  never  ceased  to  be 
given  in  the  Anglican  Communion ;  and  that  of  this  tradition 
Bishop  Seabury  was  one  of  the  stanchest  and  most  uncom- 
promising  witnesses.     Yet   to   whatever    other   sources   may 


400  MEMOIR    OF    BISIIOr    SEADUKY. 

be  attributed  the  renewed  recognition  of  this  tradition,  one 
can  hardly  help  thinking  that  few  influences  were  more  in- 
strumental in  preparing  the  way  for  it  than  those  of  Bishop 
Jebb's  writings;  and  to  those  who  know  how  much  Bishop 
Jebb  was  indebted  for  his  Church  principles  to  Alexander 
Knox  in  his  "  Thirty  Years  Correspondence  "  with  that  re- 
markable man;  and  how  much  Knox  was  indebted  for  his 
Churchmanship  to  his  study  of  Bishop  Seabury's  sermons, 
there  will  appear  strong  confirmation  of  the  belief  that  those 
sermons,  little  accounted  of  as  in  some  quarters  they  were 
in  their  first  publication,  were  used  in  the  economy  of  the 
Divine  Providence,  as  a  means  for  the  accomplishment  of 
one  of  the  greatest  revivals  ever  known  in  the  history  of  the 
Church." 

Of  the  two  volumes  of  these  sermons  published  by  Bishop 
Seabury  in  1793  (''printed  by  T.  &  J.  Swords,  for  J.  Riving- 
ton,  Bookseller,  No.  i  Queen  Street,"  )  it  was  remarked,  after 
his  death  by  his  friend  the  Rev^.  Jonathan  Boucher,  that  they 
"  are  such  as  might  have  brought  credit  to  any  prelate  in  any 
age  and  in  any  Country."  Mr.  Boucher  further  states  that 
their  author  "  wished  to  have  had  them  republished  in  Eng- 
land ;  and  for  that  purpose  furnished  the  author  of  this  volume 
with  six  more  discourses  in  MS.  to  be  added  to  them.  But 
such,"  continues  Mr.  Boucher,  "  is  the  obscurity,  or  possibly 
the  unpopularity  of  a  man  of  unquestioned  learning  and  piety 
that  no  Bookseller  has  yet  ventured  to  undertake  the  work."  ^- 

The  six  sermons  referred  to  by  Mr.  Boucher,  are  presuma- 

11.  For  the  suggestion  of  the  sequence  of  influences  noted  in 
this  last  paragraph,  I  am  indebted  to  a  letter,  of  November  7,  1891, 
from  the  late  Dean  Hoffman,  who  thus  reported  to  me  what  had  been 
imparted  to  him  in  his  intercourse  with  Churchmen,  while  sojourning 
in  Great  Britain. 

12.  A  view  of  the  causes  and  consequences  of  the  American  Revo- 
lution, by  Jonathan  Boucher,  A.  M.  &  F.  A.  S.,  Vicar  of  Epsom  in  the 
county  of  Surrey,  p.  556.    Note. 


THE   DECLINE   OF   LIFE.  4^1 

bly  the  same  which  were  printed  in  a  separate  volume  after 
Bishop  Seabury's  death,  by  T.  &  J.  Swords  of  New  York, 
in  1798. 

An  edition  of  Bishop  Seabury's  sermons,  the  second  volume 
of  which  contains  all  the  sermons  in  the  second  volume  of 
1 793 J  2.nd  also  three  of  the  six  contained  in  the  additional 
volume  of  1798,  was  published  at  Hudson,  New  York,  by 
William  E.  Norman,  in  181 5.  No  subsequent  edition  of  them 
has  yet  been  published. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
THE  DEPARTURE. 

THE  Church  of  St.  James,  in  New  London,  appears 
first  to  have  attained  its  corporate  existence  in  1732, 
by  the  election  of  Wardens  and  Vestrymen,  with  the 
father  of  Bishop  Seabury,  the  Rev^.  Samuel  Seabury,  a  Mis- 
sionary of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  as  its  Rec- 
tor. The  services  of  the  Church  of  England,  however,  had 
been  held  in  New  London,  with  more  or  less  regularity,  dur- 
ing several  years  previous;  and  the  effort  to  build  a  church 
for  the  use  of  the  congregation  was  begun  as  early  as  1725, 
though  the  building  was  not  completed  till  1732.  This  build- 
ing was  in  use  until  it  was  consumed  in  the  fire  from  which 
New  London  suffered  in  the  attack  upon  it  by  the  forces  of 
Benedict  Arnold:  and  the  congregation  remained  without  a 
church  until  1787.  Bishop  Seabury 's  advent  to  New  London 
having  been  some  two  years  before  the  completion  of  the  new 
building,  he  held  services  for  the  time  being  in  the  Court 
House,  and  is  said  to  have  celebrated  the  Holy  Eucharist 
every  Sunday  in  the  parlour  of  his  residence,^  the  parsonage- 
house,  which  had  been  erected  about  1747.  In  this  Bishop 
Seabury  resided  from  his  first  coming  to  New  London  on  his 
return  from  England,  until  the  time  of  his  death. 

"  No  formal  call  to  the  Rectorship,"  says  Dr.  Hallam,  "  is 
recorded  in  the  Parish  Book.  Perhaps  there  was  none ;  but  he 
entered  without  ceremony  on  this  portion  of  his  diocese  as 

I.  Annals  of  St.  James'  Church,  New  London,  by  Reyd  R.  A.  Hal- 
lam, D.  D.,  pp.  70,  71. 

402 


THE   DEPARTURE.  4O3 

that  in  which  he  chose  to  dwell,  and  was  content  to  add  to  the 
duties  of  the  Episcopate  the  humble  labors  of  a  parochial 
pastorate.  And  the  people  welcomed  him  gladly,  '  esteeming 
him  very  highly  in  love  for  his  work's  sake,'  and  glad  and 
honored  to  have,  as  their  more  immediate  pastor,  one  to  whom 
they  owed  also  the  higher  affection  and  respect  due  to  him 
as  their  bishop.^ " 

The  family  of  Bishop  Seabury  at  this  period  consisted  of 
three  daughters,  and  three  sons,  all  adults.  His  wife,  as  has 
been  mentioned,  had  died  while  he  resided  in  New  York  dur- 
ing the  War,  and  one  son  had  died  in  infancy.  The  eldest 
of  his  children,  Violetta  Ricketts,  born  October  9,  1758,  was 
married  to  Charles  Nicol  Taylor,  who  served  as  an  officer  in 
the  Royalist  army  during  the  Revolution.  There  were  two 
sons  of  this  marriage,  and  two  daughters;  one  of  whom, 
Charlotte  Violetta,  married  Isaac  Wilkins,  a  son  of  Bishop 
Seabury's  old  friend  who  had  succeeded  him  as  Rector  of 
St.  Peter's,  Westchester,  descendants  of  which  marriage  are 
still  living;  and  the  other  of  whom,  Maria,  married  Thomas 
H.  Merry,  of  which  marriage  also  there  are  still  honored 
descendants. 

The  second  of  the  Bishop's  children,  Abigail  Mumford, 
born  February  12,  1760,  was  married  to  Colin  Campbell,  and 
had  issue  two  daughters,  one  of  whom  was  married  to  Mr. 
John  Treadwell.  I  believe  there  are  no  descendants  of  this 
line. 

The  third  child,  born  July  20,  1761,  is  entered  by  the  Bishop 
in  his  family  record  as  Mary,  though  the  custom  was  to  call 
her  Maria;  a  custom  which  the  Bishop  may  possibly  have 
originated  in  order  to  avoid  confusion,  as  Mary  was  the  name 
of  his  wife  as  well  as  of  this  daughter.  The  name  Maria 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  previously  a  family  name,  though 

2.  Hallam's  Annals  of  St.  James'  Church,  New  London,  p.  70, 


404  MEMOIR   OF    UlSIlOr    SEABURY. 

several  of  the  Bishop's  descendants  have  borne  it  in  remem- 
brance of  this  daughter  of  his ;  who,  remaining  unmarried, 
seems  to  have  been  his  chief  dependence  in  the  way  of  domes- 
tic comfort,  and  not  only  to  have  i)resided  over  his  house, 
but  also  to  have  been  very  near  to  him  in  affectionate  com- 
panionship. 

Samuel,  the  next  child  of  the  Bishop  who  attained  maturity, 
born  October  29,  1765,  was  a  doctor  of  medicine.  He  died 
in  comparatively  early  life,  having  married  Frances  Taber; 
of  which  marriage  there  was  no  issue. 

The  next  son,  Edward,  born  October  5,  1767,  married 
Lucretia  Otis,  but  of  this  marriage  also  there  was  no  issue. 

The  youngest  son  of  the  Bishop,  born  May  29,  1770,  and 
named  Charles,  after  Dr.  Inglis,  sometime  Bishop  of  Nova 
Scotia,  married  Ann  Saltonstall,  daughter  of  Roswell  Salton- 
stall  of  New  London,  and  Elizabeth  Stewart  his  wife.  Of 
this  marriage  there  were  five  sons,  Samuel,  Charles  Salton- 
stall, William,  Edward,  and  Richard  Francis;  of  whom 
Samuel,  Charles  Saltonstall  and  Richard  Francis  married  and 
left  issue.  The  other  two  sons,  William  and  Edward,  died 
unmarried. 

From  these  brief  references  it  will  have  appeared  that  the 
only  descendants  of  Bishop  Seabury  bearing  his  name  are 
those  who  trace  through  his  youngest  son,  the  Rev^.  Charles 
Seabury.  Richard  Francis,  the  youngest  married  son  of  the 
Revd.  Charles,  settled  in  Illinois,  and  left  there  surviving 
him  three  sons,  Charles,  Richard  and  Samuel.  The  second 
son  of  the  Revd.  Charles,  Charles  Saltonstall,  who  settled  on 
Long  Island,  had  four  sons,  two  of  whom,  Thomas  and  Sam- 
uel, left  male  issue.  Samuel,  the  eldest  son  of  the  Revd. 
Charles,  followed  the  course  of  his  father,  grandfather  and 
great-grandfather,  in  receiving  Holy  Orders,  and  spent  a  long, 
and  conspicuously  influential  and  useful  life  in  the  discharge  of 
his  vocation  in  New  York,  as  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  An- 


THE   DEPARTURE.  405 

nunclation,  Editor  of  "  The  Churchman,"  and  Professor  in 
the  General  Theological  Seminary.  He  died  in  1872,  leaving 
him  surviving  several  daughters  and  one  only  son,  the  present 
w^riter,  who  has  two  sons,  Samuel  Seabury,  and  William 
Marston  Seabury. 

So  much  in  reference  to  the  family  of  Bishop  Seabury  it 
has  seemed  desirable  to  record  here;  yet  the  purpose  with 
which  the  record  was  begun,  was  not  so  much  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  his  descendants,  as  to  indicate  the  home  associations 
by  which  he  was  surrounded  in  the  closing  years  of  his  life. 
There  are  no  traditions  in  respect  to  what  then  constituted 
his  household.  The  parsonage-house  was  small,  and  all  the 
members  of  the  family,  except  IMaria,  being  married,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  they  all  had  their  own  homes,  though 
probably  still  in  New  London.  The  one  exception  to  this 
was  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Taylor  who,  after  her  husband's 
death,  made  her  home  with  her  father;  so  that  the  household 
would  seem  after  that  to  have  comprised  herself  and  her 
family,  as  well  as  her  unmarried  sister. 

Coming  back  from  one  of  his  journeys,  October  20,  1792, 
the  Bishop  makes  the  following  entry  in  his  Journal: 

"  Upon  my  return  home,  I  found  my  family  in  deep  afflic- 
tion for  the  death  of  my  Son-in-law,  Mr.  Charles  Nicol 
Taylor,  who  died  in  September  last  at  Norfolk  in  Virginia. 
May  God  be  the  protector  of  his  widow  and  fatherless  chil- 
dren. Have  mercy  upon  them,  O  God,  and  bless  them  for 
Christ's  sake.     Amen." 

In  a  letter  to  her  husband's  sister,  Mrs.  Matthias  Nicol, 
dated  November  3,  1702,  Mrs.  Taylor  writes: 

''  In  bitter  affliction  I  have  given  up  the  house  I  hired  with 
such  pleasing  expectations,  and  for  the  present  have  returned 


406  MEMOIR    OF    P.ISITOP    SEABURY. 

to  my  father's  whose  goodness  I  have  often  experienced  and 
always  been  grateful  for." 

These  references  give  all  the  information  which  appears 
to  be  attainable  in  reference  to  the  Bishop's  household.  He 
frequently  mentions  his  sons  Edward  and  Charles  in  various 
connections,  and  once  refers  to  the  serious  illness  of  his  son 
Samuel:  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  of  these 
were  of  his  household.  Probably  his  associations  were  closer 
with  his  son  Charles,  as  being  his  son  in  the  Ministry  as  well 
as  in  the  family  than  they  were  with  the  others ;  and  the  facts 
that  Charles  had  married  the  daughter  of  one  of  the  wardens 
of  the  Parish,  Mr.  Roswell  Saltonstall,  and  that  to  some  ex- 
tent at  least  he  acted  as  his  father's  assistant  in  the  Church, 
would  render  those  associations  closer. 

All  traditions  represent  Bishop  Seabury  as  of  robust  con- 
stitution, constant  good  health,  and  remarkable  bodily 
strength.  He  seems  never  to  have  suffered  from  any  ex- 
tended illness,  and  to  have  been  always  capable  of  undergo- 
ing hardship  and  labours  without  fatigue.  Dr.  Hallam,  one  of 
his  successors  in  the  Rectorate  of  St.  James,  brought  up  in 
New  London  among  those  who  had  been  personally  ac- 
quainted with  Bishop  Seabury  and  had  clear  remembrances 
of  him,  describes  him  as  in  person  not  very  tall,  but  stout, 
robust,  and  massive.  Dr.  Burhans  who  had  been  ordained 
by  Bishop  Seabury,  and  who  had  many  personal  remem- 
brances of  him,  some  of  which  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life 
he  put  into  writing,  describes  him  as  "  not  above  the  medium 
height,  of  full  plethoric  habit  in  proportion  to  his  height, 
attributing  to  him  also  "  a  high  forehead,  full  face,  and  dark 
grey  eyes."  The  Bishop's  allusions  to  his  health,  in  one  or 
two  instances  in  his  Journal,  intimate,  indeed,  what  it  would 
be  natural  to  expect,  that  in  the  course  of  the  last  few  years 
of  his  life  he  had  some  warnings  of  decreasing  strength;  but 


THE   DEPARTURE.  4^7 

there  was  nothing  to  keep  him  from  the  regular  and  energetic 
discharge  of  his  duty.  So  late  as  June  g,  1794,  which  would 
be  in  the  ninth  of  the  little  more  than  eleven  years  of  his 
Episcopate,  he  notes  in  his  Journal  ''  Rain  prevented  me  from 
visiting  Woodbridge  according  to  appointment.  N.  B.  This 
is  the  first  appointment  in  which  I  have  failed  since  I  have 
been  in  Connecticut  —  such  has  been  the  goodness  of  God." 
And  there  are  the  records  after  that  of  visitations,  with  many 
official  acts,  and  many  long  hard  miles  of  travel;  so  that  his 
natural  force  seems  hardly  to  have  been  abated  even  to  the 
end.  Only  one  slight  attack  seems  to  have  been  at  all  se- 
rious ;  and  that  took  no  hold  upon  him.  On  the  7th  of  June, 
1794,  he  says,  "  Some  symptoms  of  a  paralytic  nature  attacked 
me  in  the  street,  and  alarmed  me  very  much  " ;  but  on  the 
next  day,  which  was  Whitsunday,  he  writes :  "  Was  weak 
and  languid.  But  God  enabled  me  to  go  thro'  my  peculiar 
duties,  &  to  preach  all  day.  A.  M.  .  .  .  P.  M.  .  .  . 
Ordained  Mr.  Daniel  Burhans,  Priest,  confirmed  35.  Dr. 
Hubbard  consecrated  the  Eucharist."  This  last  item  is  all 
that  shows  him  as  not  fully  up  to  his  work;  for,  no  doubt, 
under  ordinary  conditions  he  would  himself  have  been  the 
Consecrator.  So,  he  went  steadily  on  with  his  regular  work 
of  every  kind,  until  one  day,  after  some  parochial  visits  in 
New  London,  he  stopped  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Roswell  Sal- 
tonstall,  and  remained  to  tea.  Complaining  at  the  end  of 
the  meal,  of  a  violent  pain  in  the  breast,  he  rose  from  the 
table,  but  instantly  fell,  and  almost  immediately  expired: 
a  sudden  death,  in  the  sense  of  being  the  wholly  unexpected 
termination  of  a  long,  active  and  useful  life;  but,  surely,  by 
no  means  the  death  unprovided  for,  against  which  it  may  be 
presumed  we  chiefly  pray  in  the  Litany.  No  one  could  have 
been  more  conscious  than  this  faithful  soldier  and  servant 
of  Christ,  of  the  need  of  being  always  ready  to  respond  to 
the  call  of  his  Master,  whensoever  it  might  come  to  him. 


408  MKMOIR    OF    I'.lSiinp    SI£Ar.URY. 

"  Blessed  arc  those  servants  wliom  the  Lord  when  he  cometh 
shall  find  watching:  .  .  .  and  if  he  shall  come  in  the 
second  watch,  or  come  in  the  third  watch,  and  find  them  so, 
blessed  are  those  servants." 

The  Bishop  died  on  the  25th  of  February,  as  we  commonly 
speak,  in  the  year  1796;  or,  if  we  may  be  allowed  to  use  the 
proper  ecclesiastical  computation,  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Mat- 
thias; the  year  1796  having  been  a  bis-sextile  or  leap  year, 
and  what  we  now  call  the  25th  of  February  being  only  the 
latter  part  of  St.  Matthias  Day  —  which,  although  marked 
as  the  24th  in  the  calendar,  is  also  that  sixth  day  before  the 
Calends  of  March,  the  doubling  of  which  is  appointed  to 
supply  the  loss  of  the  twenty-four  hours  as  yet  uncounted, 
and  gives  to  the  fourth  year  its  proper  name  of  ^w-sextile. 
This  association  of  the  day  of  the  Bishop's  death  with  the 
anniversary  of  St.  Matthias,  may  seem  to  be  fanciful  —  to 
some,  perhaps,  trivial ;  but  I  know  not  who  is  authorized  to 
set  bounds  to  the  range  of  associations,  or  to  the  devout  les- 
sons which  they  are  capable  of  teaching;  and  to  me,  I  con- 
fess, there  is  something  most  suggestive  and  refreshing  in 
the  remembrance  that  the  humble  and  self-denying  Christian 
who  was  ordained  to  be  the  Apostle  of  the  New  World, 
began  his  earthly  life  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Andrew,  who, 
gladly  leaving  all  that  he  had,  was  the  first  disciple  of  Our 
Lord;  and  ended  that  life  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Matthias,  who, 
being  numbered  with  the  eleven  Apostles  after  the  defection 
of  Judas,  was  thus  appointed  to  repair  the  first  breach  in  the 
succession  of  Christ's  Apostolic  Ministry.^ 

3.  "  A  leap-year  consists  of  three  hundred  and  sixty-six  natural 
days  of  twenty-four  hours  each;  but  the  Church  Calendar  makes 
every  year,  a  leap-year  as  well  as  a  common  year,  to  consist  of  ex- 
actly three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days;  and  consequently  the  inter- 
calated day  cannot  of  itself  become  a  calendar  day,  but  can  only  be 
inserted  in  the  Calendar  by  being  joined  with  another  day,  and  having 
the  same  letter  with  the  day  to  which  it  is  joined.    The  intercalation 


THE   DEPARTURE.  4O9 

Bishop  Seabury  having  been  born  November  30,  1729,  and 
dying  February  25,  1796,  his  exact  age  at  the  time  of  his 
death  was  6y  years,  two  [calendar]  months,  and  25  days; 
which  is  noted  here  because  a  different  account  has  some- 
times been  given  of  it,  arising  from  an  ambiguity  in  one  of 
the  inscriptions  relating  to  him.  His  Episcopate,  extending 
from  November  14,  1784,  to  the  date  of  his  death,  covered 
the  comparatively  brief  period  of  eleven  years,  three  months, 
and  eleven   days.     A   life   of  trouble,   and   almost   ceaseless 

is  made  on  the  sixth  day  before  the  Calends  of  March,  whioh  answers 
to  our  24th  day  of  February;  but  it  is  not  made  by  adding  a  new  day 
to  the  Calendar  year,  but  by  doubling  one  day  in  the  Calendar  year. 
Hence  the  sixth  day  before  the  Calends  of  March  was  twice  repeated, 
and  the  one  day  was  called  the  first  sixth,  and  the  other  day  the  second 
sixth;  whence  the  year  came  to  be  called  Bis-sextile,  The  proper 
letter  for  the  24th  day  of  February  is  f,  and  hence  the  old  copies  of 
the  Calendar  give  the  rule  for  that  day,  "  F  litera  bis  numeretur," 
the  letter  F  must  be  counted  twice;  showing  that  these  two  natural 
days  are  held  and  accounted  to  be  one  and  the  same  Calendar  day, 
having  one  and  the  same  letter  in  common."  (The  theory  and  use 
of  the  Church  Calendar  in  the  measurement  and  distribution  of  time,'* 
by  the  Rev^.  Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.,  pp.  36,  zi-^  See  also  pp.  53-61, 
of  the  same  work  as  to  the  modern  assignment  of  a  29th  day  of 
February  as  the  intercalary  day;  and  in  regard  to  the  curious  con- 
troversy in  the  17th  and  i8th  centuries  as  to  the  proper  time  of 
observing  St.  Matthias'  Day  in  leap-year,  in  which  the  author  remarks 
that  "  the  case  is  one  in  which  the  Church  has  ruled  one  way,  and  a 
convenient  compliance  with  the  customs  of  the  world  has  drawn  us 
the  other  way."  It  would  appear  that  the  Feast  was  observed  in  leap- 
years  on  the  25th  for  more  than  five  hundred  years  before  and  since 
the  Reformation,  and  continued  to  be  so  observed  in  England  for 
many  years  after  the  revision  of  1662,  which  was  the  first  to  introduce 
the  29th  in  the  column  for  February ;  and  that  the  Roman  usage  as 
to  St.  Matthias  has  remained  unchanged,  "  the  Roman  offices  requiring 
the  feast  to  be  observed  in  leap-years  on  the  2Sth  of  February,  and  the 
present  breviaries  having  as  a  running  title  for  the  Feast  of  St. 
Matthias,  "  Die  XXIV  vel  XXV  Februarii,"  and  expressly  directing 
that  the  feast  shall  be  celebrated  on  the  24th  in  common  years,  and 
on  the  25tli  in  a  leap-year." 


4IO  MEMOIR    OF    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

Strife;  of  incessant  labours  and  many  sorrows;  of  much  mis- 
understanding and  most  undeserved  reproach !  An  Episco- 
pate of  magnificent  opportunities,  of  which  he  made  the  very 
most  that  could  be  made  under  the  restraining  and  hamper- 
ing limitations  which  surrounded  him !  And  yet  withal,  a 
life  and  ministry  full  of  good  tempered  cheer,  and  self-sur- 
rendered faithfulness ;  of  absolute  honesty,  fearlessness  and 
devotion;  and  singularly  free  from  any  trace  of  that  self 
seeking  and  personal  ambition,  which  sometimes  taint  the 
record  of  most  glorious  accomplishments !  Such  a  life  and 
ministry  as  might  well  make  him  ready  to  hear,  whensoever 
it  might  come  to  him,  the  Angelic  word  of  deliverance  from 
the  burden  of  the  flesh  — "  Go  thou  thy  way  till  the  end  be : 
for  thou  shalt  rest,  and  stand  in  thy  lot  at  the  end  of  the 
days!"     Daniel  xii,  13. 

There  seem  to  be  no  contemporaneous  records  extant  de- 
scriptive of  Bishop  Seabury's  death.  ''  His  funeral,"  says 
Dr.  Hallam,  "  was  attended  without  pomp,  the  only  record 
of  it  in  the  register  book  of  the  parish  being  the  simple 
words : 

"  February  28,  1796.  Buried,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Tyler,  of 
Norwich,  Right  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island." 
.  .  .  He  was  buried  in  the  public  burying  ground  in 
New  London,  and  a  table  of  gray  marble  placed  over  his 
grave,  with  the  following  inscription,  written  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Bowden,  of  Columbia  College,  N.  Y. : 

Here   lieth   the   body   of 

Samuel  Seabury,  D.D., 

Bishop  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island, 

Who   departed    from    this    transitory    scene,    February    25**^, 

1796, 
In  the  sixty  eighth  year  of  his  age. 


THE    DEPARTURE.  4II 

Ingenious  without  pride,  learned  without  pedantry, 
Good  without  severity, 

He  was   duly   qualified   to   discharge   the   duties   of 
The  Christian  &  the  Bishop : 
In  the  pulpit  he  enforced  religion: 
In  his  conduct  he  exemplified  it: 
The  poor  he  assisted  with  his  charity: 
The  ignorant  he  blessed  with  his  instruction : 
The  friend  of  man,  he  ever  desired  their  good; 
The  enemy  of  vice,  he  ever  opposed  it. 
Christian!     Dost  thou  aspire  to  happiness? 
Seabury  has  shown  the  way  that  leads  to  it."  ^ 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Burhans,  in  the  remembrances  of  Bishop 
Seabury  which  he  contributed  to  Sprague's  Annals  of  the 
American  pulpit,^  quotes  a  description  given  of  the  Bishop's 
funeral  by  a  certain  Mr.  Rogers,  a  Baptist  neighbour  of  Dr. 
Burhans,  which  as  coming  from  an  eyewitness  of  the  scene 
is  not  without  its  value,  and  is  of  interest  as  suggestive  of 
the  regard  in  which  the  Bishop  was  held  by  the  humbler  sort 
among  his  fellow  townsmen.  Mr.  Rogers  spoke  of  the 
Bishop  as  one  of  the  most  mild  and  exemplary  men  he  ever 
knew;  and,  as  remarkable  for  visiting  and  relieving  the  sick 
and  the  poor,  the  widow  and  the  orphan.  "  The  most  in- 
teresting funeral,"  continued  Mr.  Rogers,  "  I  ever  attended 
was  Bishop  Seabury's.  It  was  not  only  the  largest,  but  the 
most  solemn  and  affecting.  .  .  .  The  sidewalks  from  the 
Church  to  the  grave  for  some  considerable  distance,  were 
lined  with  the  decrepit,  the  aged,  the  halt  and  blind,  lament- 
ing their  loss;  and  while  their  withered  cheeks  were  bathed 
in  tears,  their  heads  uncovered,  and  their  gray  locks  waving 

5.  Annals  of  St.  James'  Church,  New  London;  pp.  77-78. 

6.  Vol.  V,  pp.  154-158.  From  an  extract  made  for  me  by  Reyd.  Mr. 
Hooper. 


412  MRMOIR    or    BISHOP    SEABURY. 

in  the  wind,  their  waihng  and  lamentation  were  articulate.'* 
Dr.  Hallam,  too,  describing  Uishop  Seabury's  pastoral  life, 
speaks  particularly  of  his  benevolence  and  charity,  and  of  his 
being  "  always  ready  to  use  the  medical  skill  which  he  had 
acquired  in  early  life  gratuitously  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor 
and  needy,  doing  good  with  his  narrow  income  to  the  utmost 
extent  of  his  ability ;  so  that  when  he  died,  he  had  *  a  tune 
of  orphans'  tears  wept  over  him,' — sweetest  and  most  hon- 
orable requiem  that  can  attend  the  bier  of  any  man."  ^ 

Entirely  right  and  earnestly  to  be  desired  as  it  is  that  the 
bodies  which  we  commit  to  the  ground,  "  looking  for  the 
general  resurrection  in  the  last  day  and  the  life  of  the  world  to 
come,"  should  remain  always  undisturbed  in  their  rest ;  yet 
there  are  sometimes  considerations  which  seem  to  justify  an 
exception  to  that  rule.  The  building  occupied  by  the  congre- 
gation of  St.  James  in  New  London,  which  had  been  con- 
secrated by  Bishop  Seabury  in  1787,  had  in  process  of  time 
been  found  to  be  insufficient  for  the  work  of  the  Parish,  and 
it  was  determined  to  erect  a  new  building,  the  corner  stone 
of  which  was  laid  in  1847,  the  consecration  taking  place  in 
1850.  The  erection  of  a  substantial  and  beautiful  stone 
Church  which  gave  every  promise  of  permanence,  seemed  to 
carry  with  it  the  suggestion  to  some  that  it  would  be  a  more 
appropriate  resting  place  for  the  remains  of  Bishop  Seabury, 
the  former  Rector  of  the  Parish,  than  could  be  afforded  by 
the  public  burying  ground  in  which  they  had  been  placed. 
It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  notice,  as  having  been  apt  to  pre- 
dispose men  to  the  thought  of  this  transfer,  that  there  had 
for  some  time  in  the  earlier  history  of  the  parish  prevailed 
the  custom,  not  uncommon  in  English  parishes,  of  burying 
the  dead  beneath  the  Church.  Dr.  Hallam,  in  his  Annals 
of  St.  James,  gives  an  account  of  a  number  of  such  inter- 

7.  Hallam's  Annals  of  St.  James',  p.  74. 


THE   DEPARTURE.  4^3 

ments  under  the  first  Church  of  the  Parish,  destroyed  by 
fire  in  the  War  of  the  Revokition,  the  last  of  which  inter- 
ments was  that  of  Mr.  Matthew  Stewart,  one  of  the  original 
Vestrymen  of  the  Parish,  and  the  father  of  Roswell  Salton- 
stall's  wife ;  and  thus,  by  the  way,  the  ancestor  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury 's  descendants  through  his  son  Charles.^ 

Speaking  of  this  removal  of  Bishop  Seabury's  remains, 
Dr.  Hallam  says,  "  It  seemed  a  proper  thing,  especially  as 
he  had  been  rector  of  the  parish  as  well  as  bishop  of  the 
Diocese,  that  they  should  now  be  transferred  to  the  Church, 
and  a  suitable  monument  to  his  memory  be  placed  over  them. 
The  idea  found  favor,  both  in  the  parish  and  in  the  Diocese 
at  large.  The  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  held  June  8,  1847, 
passed  the  following  vote :  *  That  a  Committee  of  three  be 
appointed  to  collect,  through  private  donations,  a  sum  suffi- 
cient for  the  erection  of  a  monument,  of  suitable  stability 
and  beauty,  to  the  memory  of  the  first  Bishop  of  this  Diocese, 
to  be  placed,  with  the  consent  of  the  vestry,  within  the  walls 
of  the  new  Church  of  his  former  Parish,  St.  James's,  New 
London.'  .  .  .  The  parish,  on  its  part,  though  heavily, 
taxed  for  the  erection  of  the  Church,  met  the  call  hand- 
somely and  liberally.  The  work  of  preparing  a  design  for 
the  monument,  and  attending  to  its  execution,  was  entrusted 
to  Mr.  Upjohn.^  In  the  summer  of  1849,  the  Church  was 
so  far  advanced  as  to  be  ready  to  receive  the  monument, 

8.  "  Mr.  Stewart  died  in  1779,  and  was,  doubtless,  the  last  person 
laid  underneath  the  Church.  Being  an  ardent  Royalist,  he  became 
obnoxious  to  public  feeling,  and  was  a  virtual  prisoner  in  his  own 
house.  And  tradition  says  that  his  death  was  concealed  to  avoid  pop- 
ular violence,  and  his  body  interred  by  torchlight,  on  Sunday  evening, 
under  the  old  Church," — Hallam's  Annals  of  St.  James,  pp.  27,  28. 

9.  Mr.  Richard  Upjohn,  who  had  made  himself  a  name  in  the 
erection  of  the  Church  of  the  Ascension,  and  Trinity  Church,  New 
York,  was  also  the  architect  of  St.  James'  Church,  New  London. — 
Hallam's  Annals  of  St.  James',  pp.  102,  105. 


414  MEMOIR   OF    lilSIlOP    SEABURY. 

which  was  to  be  built  into  the  eastern  wall  of  the  Chancel, 
and  on  the  twelfth  day  of  Sei)tember,  the  ceremony  of  re- 
moving the  Bishop's  remains,  and  placing  them  in  their  final 
resting  place  was  performed  with  appropriate  solemnities.^^ 
From  the  minute  made  at  the  time  in  the  register  book 
of  the  parish,  a  cojiy  of  which  Dr.  Ilallam  subjoined  to 
the  above  account,  it  appears  that  the  remains  were  placed  in 
a  new  coffin  and  borne  to  the  Church  by  eight  Clergymen, 
and  that  the  services  at  the  Church  were  performed  by  the 
Rector,  and  the  Revd.  Dr.  Jarvis,  the  son  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury 's  successor.  Speaking  of  Bishop  Seabury's  remains, 
Dr.  Hallam  remarks  that  his  bones  were  found  perfect,  but 
that  no  part  of  the  coffin  appeared,  "  except  a  portion  of  the 
lid,  surrounded  by  brass  nails  in  the  form  of  a  heart,  con- 
taining within  it,  in  brass  nails  also,  these  letters  and  figures : 

S.    S. 

AE.  67. 

1796." 

I  well  recollect  being  present,  as  a  lad  of  twelve  years  old, 
with  my  father  at  the  grave  when  these  remains  were  taken 
up ;  but  the  only  thing  which  I  remember  to  have  noticed  was 
the  brass  studded  heart  of  oak,  with  the  initials.^^ 

Since  the  removal  of  the  remains,  the  grave  stone,  with 
Dr.  Bowden's  inscription,  has  been  placed  within  the  enclosure 
on  the  north  side  of  the  present  Church ;  as  is  noted  by  Dr. 
Hallam,  who  also  mentions  another  tablet  in  the  form  of  an 
obelisk,  with  an  epitaph,  which  has  been  removed  from  the 

10.  Hallam's  Annals  of  St.  James'  Church,  pp.  104-105. 

11.  I  recalled  this  remembrance  in  an  address  delivered  before  the 
New  York  Genealogical  and  Biographical  Society,  December  14,  1888, 
mentioning  only  the  heart  and  the  initials ;  not  having  observed  the 
note  of  the  age  and  the  date,  of  which  I  afterwards  learned  from  Dr. 
Hallam's  account. 


THE   DEPARTURE.  415 

Church,  and  placed  in  the  basement  chapel  below  it;  and 
I  quote  further  from  Dr.  Hallam  the  following  account  of 
the  new  tomb  with  its  inscriptions  in  English  and  Latin;  the 
latter  by  the  Rev^.  Dr.  Samuel  Farmar  Jarvis,  with  Dr.  Hal- 
lam's  translation. 

"  When,  in  1849,  ^^^  Bishop's  remains  were  placed  under 
the  chancel  of  the  Church,  then  in  process  of  erection,  at  the 
joint  expense  of  the  diocese  and  parish,  a  handsome  monu- 
ment of  free  stone,  in  the  form  of  an  Altar-tomb,  underneath 
a  canopy  surmounted  by  a  Mitre,  was  placed  over  his  final 
resting  place.  On  the  slab  above  the  tomb,  this  simple  record 
was  engraven : 

The  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God, 

Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D. 

First  Bishop  of  Connecticut, 

And  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States ; 

Consecrated  at  Aberdeen,  Scotland,  Nov.   14,   1784: 

Died  Feb.  25,  1796 ;  aged  67. 
The  Diocese  of  Connecticut  recorded  here 
its  grateful  memory  of  his  virtues  &  services; 

A.   D.    1849. 

And,  on  a  brass  plate  inserted  in  its  upper  surface,  this 
inscription : 

A  T  a 

-/.   Sub  pavimento  altaris 
Ut  in  loco  quietis  ultimo  usque  ad  magni  diei  judicium 
Exuviae  mortales  praesulis  admodum  reverendi  nunc  restant, 

Samuelis  Seabury,  S.  T.  D.  Oxon., 

Qui  primus   in  rempublicam   novi   orbis   Anglo-Americanam 

Successionem  Apostolicam, 

E.  Scotia  transtulit 

XVIII.  Kal.  Dec,  A.  D.  CI0I3CCLXXXIV, 


4l6  MtMOlKS   OF    BlSUOr    SEABUKY. 

Diocesis  sua 

laboruin    ct   aiig"ustiarum    tain   chari    capitis    nunquam    oblita 

in  ecclcsia  nova  S.  Jacobi  majoris  Nco  Londincnsi  olim  sede 

sua    hoc    monunicntuni    nunc    dcmuni    longo    post    tempore 

honoris  causa 

Anno  Salut.  nost  CIDIOCCCXLIX 

ponere  curavit. 

Of  which  the  following  is  a  translation: 

Under  the  pavement  of  the  altar,  as  in  the  final  place  of 
rest  until  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,  now  repose  the 
mortal  remains  of  the  Right  Rev.  Prelate,  Samuel  Seabury, 
D.  D.,  Oxon.,  who  first  brought  from  Scotland,  into  the 
Anglo-American  Republic  of  the  New  World  the  Apostolic 
Succession,  Nov.  14,  1784.  His  diocese,  never  forgetful  of 
the  labors  and  trials  of  so  dear  a  person,  in  the  new  Church 
of  St.  James  the  greater,  of  New  London,  formerly  his  see, 
now  at  last,  after  so  long  a  time,  has  taken  care  to  place  this 
monument  to  his  honor  in  the  year  of  our  salvation,  1849."  ^^ 

I  anticipate,  and  can  hardly  deny  the  justice  of,  the  prob- 
able comment  of  the  critical  reader,  that  this  chapter  might 
more  properly  have  been  entitled  as  of  Memorials  of  the  de- 
ceased, than  as  of  his  departure :  yet  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the 
connection  between  the  two;  and  I  am  disposed  to  think  that 
as  it  has  been  the  work  of  piety  to  commemorate  the  departed 
in  places  with  which  his  name  had  some  associations,  so  it 
may  be  accounted  an  act  of  reverent  love  on  my  part  to  group 
the  most  notable  of  them  together  at  the  close  of  this  memoir. 

There  have  been  a  goodly  number  of  these  memorials  in 
various  places ;  and  it  is  certainly  worthy  of  notice,  as  show- 
ing the  cumulative  force  of  the  respectful  regard  of  posterity 

12.  Hallam's  Annals  of  St.  James',  pp.  79-80. 


THE   DEPARTURE.  417 

for  the  devoted  life  which  it  has  sought  to  commemorate, 
that  none  of  these  testimonies,  except  those  at  New  London 
which  were  directly  consequent  upon  the  death,  were  given 
until  more  than  half  a  century  afterwards.  The  first  of  these 
later  recognitions  were  those  attendant  upon  the  re-interment, 
which  have  been  already  described;  and  these  were  fifty-three 
years  after  Bishop  Seabury's  death.  Since  then  there  have 
been  stained  glass  windows  in  the  chapel  of  the  Berkeley  Di- 
vinity School  at  Middletown,  Connecticut;  in  St.  Andrew's, 
Aberdeen,  and  other  Churches.  The  Altar,  too,  whereon,  dur- 
ing his  Rectorate  of  the  old  Church  of  St.  James,  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  was  wont  to  offer  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  has  been 
religiously  preserved  for  the  same  use  in  the  Chapel  of  the 
Berkeley  School.^^ 

A  commemoration  of  a  different  kind,  but  very  notable  on 
account  of  its  Presbyterian  environment,  is  in  the  form  of  a 
tablet,  bearing  the  Mitre,  with  an  appropriate  inscription,  on 
the  walls  of  the  University  of  Aberdeen. 

In  St.  Paul's  Church  in  Rome,  eminent  among  the  Churches 
as  the  first  of  another  communion,  to  be  erected  within  the 
walls  of  the  papal  city,  the  fruit  of  the  devoted  labors  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  R.  J.  Nevin,  of  blessed  memory,  are  two  lancet  win- 
dows, depicting  the  martyrdom  and  burial  of  St.  Paul,  and 
commemorative  of  Bishop  Seabury;  these  having  been  the 
gift  of  Mr.  J.  C.  Hooker,  an  American  resident  of  Rome,  and 
the  same  gentleman  I  believe  who  was,  in  an  earlier  period 
of  his  life,  one  of  the  co-operators  in  the  building  of  the 
Church  of  the  Annunciation  in  New  York  —  a  holy  place  now 
also  of  blessed  memory.  At  the  request  of  Dr.  Nevin  I  con- 
tributed to  that  memorial  the  following  inscription: 

13.  During  the  observance  of  the  hundredth  anniversary  of  Bishop 
Seabury's  death  at  the  Church  of  St.  James,  New  London,  I  was  per- 
mitted to  wear  a  surplice  of  his,  which  for  all  that  time  had  been 
carefully  preserved  through  successive  generations:  a  personal  me- 
morial which  seemed  to  me  of  great  significance  and  interest. 


4l8  MEMOIR    OF    lUSlIOP    SEABUKY. 

**  In  Memoriam  Sanuiclis  Scabury,  In  Sacra  Thcologia 
Doctoris  Oxonicnsis  —  Ordinarii  Dioccscos  Connccticutcnsis 
atque  Episcoporum  Catholicae  Eccelsiac  in  Civitatibus  Focder- 
atis  Amcricanis  Primi  rite  ct  canonicc  consccrati  ac  missi  — 
Aberdonac  Die  Nov.  XIV.  A.  D.  MDCCLXXXIV  f  Mor- 
tui  Die  XXV  Febr. :  A.  D.  MDCCXCVI  f  Fidcm  Servavit.  f" : 
an  inscription  wbich,  though  it  cannot  claim  to  vie  with  the 
elegance  of  that  which  came  from  the  classic  pen  of  Dr.  Jar- 
vis,  may  yet  possibly  have  served  the  purpose  of  informing 
some  representatives  of  the  Latin  Church  in  the  stronghold 
of  Papacy,  that  Bishop  Seabury  was  the  first  Catholic  Bishop 
who  was  settled  in  the  United  States  with  lawful  and  Canon- 
ical jurisdiction. 

Another  memorial  notable  as  commemorating  a  somewhat 
different  aspect  of  the  Bishop's  work,  is  that  which  is  placed 
over  the  door  of  the  Church  Missions  House  in  New  York, 
and  which  is  a  stone  relief  of  the  figures  of  St.  Augustine, 
and  Bishop  Seabury.  The  special  significance  of  this  com- 
memoration, lies  in  the  fact  that  Bishop  Seabury's  consecra- 
tion, as  the  first  consecration  by  Anglican  Bishops  for  work 
outside  of  Great  Britain,  led  the  way  for  the  establishment  of 
the  Missionary  Episcopate  of  the  Anglican  Communion 
throughout  the  world.  So  that  he  may,  in  a  very  proper 
sense,  be  called  the  first  of  the  Anglican  Missionary  Bishops. 

The  acquirement  and  preservation  by  the  Diocese  of  Con- 
necticut of  the  old  parsonage-house  at  Woodbury,  in  which 
the  election  to  the  Episcopate  took  place,  is  also  an  interest- 
ing memorial. 

The  completion  of  the  century  following  the  election,  the 
consecration  and  the  death  of  Bishop  Seabury  produced  many 
services  and  sermons  commemorative  of  him  —  in  Connecti- 
cut, in  New  York,  in  Scotland,  and  in  England.  The  history 
of  these  is,  of  course,  too  long  to  enter  upon  here.  The  most 
eminent  of  them  were,  naturally,  those  in  Scotland,  and  in 


THE   DEPARTURE.  419 

St.  Paul's  Cathedral  in  London  in  1884;  the  last  named  hav- 
ing been  held  on  the  day  of  the  anniversary  of  the  Consecra- 
tion. An  admirable  account  of  this  by  the  late  Chief  Justice 
Shea  was  engrossed  in  his  own  handwriting  in  a  sumptuous 
volume  which  he  afterwards  lodged  in  the  Library  of  the 
General  Theological  Seminary  in  New  York;  and  the  volume 
is  in  itself  not  the  least  of  all  the  tributes  to  the  memory  which 
it  seeks  to  perpetuate. 

So  now  I  draw  to  a  close  the  account  which  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  give  of  the  life  of  Bishop  Seabury,  as  the  story 
has  been  told  to  me  in  the  family  traditions  in  which  I  have 
been  nurtured,  and  in  the  speech  and  writings  of  others,  who 
have  extended  and  enlarged  the  teaching  of  those  traditions  by 
the  information  which  I  have  been  able  to  gather  from  them. 
I  have  told  the  story  as  my  own  story,  because  I  was  fain  to 
impart  to  others  not  merely  the  knowledge,  but  also  the  feel- 
ing and  interest  which  have  throughout  my  life  been  more  or 
less  a  part  of  myself,  and  which  have  always  been  to  me  of 
the  nature  of  an  exalting  inspiration.  There  are,  I  know, 
many  things  which  might  have  been  said,  beside  those  which 
I  have  reported.  There  are,  perhaps,  some  things  which 
I  have  said,  which  would  have  been  better  left  unsaid.  But, 
as  to  the  first,  it  has  been  absolutely  necessary  to  make  a 
selection,  which  involved  also  some  rejection :  and,  as  to  the 
second,  I  commend  myself  to  the  charity  of  the  reader.  On 
the  whole,  I  trust  that  what  has  been  said  may  have  given 
a  truthful  picture  of  the  man,  as  he  was  in  the  reality  of  his 
nature,  and  in  the  vitality  of  the  grace  by  which  that  nature 
was  elevated  and  ennobled.  The  principles  by  which  he  was 
actuated,  and  the  character  which  was  both  the  result  and 
the  energizing  force  of  those  principles,  it  is  hoped  will  have 
appeared  from  the  story  of  his  life ;  and  will  be  appreciated 
by  the  reader,  without  further  description  or  analysis. 

And  as  I  have  tried,  so  far  as  that  was  possible,  always  to 


4~0  MEMOIR   OK    151S110P    SEABUKY. 

let  the  subject  of  this  memoir  speak  for  himself,  perhaps  I 
cannot  do  better  than  to  let  him  take  leave  of  us  with  that 
brief  summing  up  of  his  life's  experience  with  which  he  sur- 
renders himself,  after  his  manner,  into  the  Divine  keeping,  as 
he  makes  in  his  Journal  the  record  of  what  appears  to  have 
been  his  last  visitation. 

On  Wednesday,  the  4th  of  November,  1795,  he  notes  his 
return  to  New  London,  after  an  absence  of  almost  four  weeks ; 
and  concludes  as  follows : 

"  In  this  journey  I  travelled  134  miles,  preached  10  times, 
administered  the  Communion  5  times,  and  confirmed  198  per- 
sons.—  And  now,  all  glory  to  God  for  his  innumerable  bene- 
fits. Thou,  O  God,  tookest  me  out  of  my  mother's  womb; 
Thou  hast  preserved  me  ever  since;  Thou  hast  blessed  me 
with  health.  Thou  hast  provided  me  with  the  comforts  and 
decencies  of  life;  Thou  hast  vouchsafed  me  the  means  of 
grace,  and  the  hope  of  glory ;  Thou  hast  raised  me  to  an  hon- 
ourable station  in  Thy  Church;  Thou  hast  given  me  a  willing 
heart  to  do  my  duty  in  it  —  confirm  that  ready  disposition ; 
Let  Thy  Holy  Spirit  ever  direct  it  to  thy  glory,  and  the  good 
of  thy  Church ;  Continue  thy  blessings  to  me ;  Bless  also  thy 
Church ;  may  thy  goodness  lead  me  to  love  Thee  above  all 
things,  through  Jesus  Christ.     Amen." 


INDEX. 

A. 

Abbott,  Bp.  of  London 242 

Aberdeen    232,  233,  234,  254,  417 

Abernethy,  Drummond,  Bp 308 

Absolution    331 

Accession  to  Jamaica   Parish 31-50 

Account  of  proceedings  from  Election  to  Consecration 265-268 

Act  of  Connecticut  Legislature 208-210 

Act   for   Settling  Ministry 38-41 

Address  to  Presbyterians 394 

Admirers  of  Dr.  Sherlock 7 

Adoption  of  American  Communion  Office,  Process  of 346 

Advertisement   of   Farm 54 

Advertisement    to    the    Public 83 

Age     409 

Alarm  to  Legislature  of  N.  Y 139 

Allan,    Rev.    John 231,  232 

Altar,  St.  James  in  Berkeley  Chapel 417 

Altar  Tomb 415 

Alterations  needed   in   Prayer   Book 325 

Amboy   80 

Amenability  of  Bps.  to  Conventions 300,  301 

America     9,  18,  79,  85,  87,  173,  228,  237,  261,  267,  2TJ 

American  and  English  Principles  Compared 165,  166 

Bishops    79,  122 

Church  Review 394 

Qergyman   calls    himself   a   Loyalist 237 

Doctor,   Bp.   Rose's  Comment  on 235 

Dragoons    142 

Empire 137 

Episcopate    80,  86,  112,  115,  118,  121,  122,  123,  128 

421 


422  INDEX. 

American   Liturgy 338 

Methodists    3^^ 

Prayer   of   Consecration    16 

Prayer  of  Consecration  compared  with  that  of  Edward  VI 34-' 

Regiment 135 

States,  Fear  of  offense  to 275,  276,  277 

Succession,  Transmission   of 354-35^ 

Whig  83,  84,  86,  89,  90,  94,  106,  119,  120,  121,  123,  136,  137 

Whig  Whipper   92 

"  Amused   if  Not  Deceived" 199 

Analogy  bet.  Mission  S.  P.  G.  and  Episcopal  Mission 33 

bet.  Parishes  of  New  and  Old  Country 34 

Anderson's    Colonial    Church 117,  128 

Andrews,  Bp.  of  Ely 242 

Angel   of   Pennsylvania 355 

Anglican    Church 14 

Anglican  Communion 222,  244,  399 

Anonymous  Writing  150 

Annotated    Scottish    Communion    Office 330,  338 

Annunciation   180,  405,  417 

Annual    Abstract 18 

Answers  to  English  Objections 271-277 

Anticipated   extension    of  jurisdiction 391 

Apostle's    Creed 332 

Apostle  of  New   World 365 

Apostolic  Canon    288,  350 

Apostolical  Commission 374 

Apostolical  Man 381 

Appeal   to    the    Public,    Chandler's 82,  84,  86,  114,  118,  119,  123 

defended,  and  further  defended 118 

Application  to  Connecticut  Legislature 205,  208 

Apprehensions  of  unchurchly  tendencies 301 

Apthorp,  James 97,  108 

John    108 

Apthorp's  Answer  to  Mayhew 117 

Arbitration    27 

Archbishop   350 

Archbishops,  Leave  of  the  two 255 

Consecration  displeasing  to 262 

Arnold,    Benedict 402 


INDEX.  423 

Arrangement  of  Ancient  and  Amer.  Liturgies  most  natural. .  .344,  345 

Article  3  of  Constitution 322-324 

Articles    of    Union 298 

Ascension,    Church   of 413 

Aspinwall  controversy 60-73 

Assistant 261 

Association    I9>  156 

Attempt  to  prejudice  Churchmen  against  Episcopate 1 12-124 

Attendance  at  General  Convention 321 

Athanasian  Creed 331,  333 

Attitude  toward  Episcopate 300 

toward  Bp.   Seabury 301 

Atlantic    84,  87,    91 

Authority,  no  wish  to  extend 280,  281 

Authorship  of  Farmer  pamphlets 166-170 

of    Independent    letter 93 

Autographs  285 

Autograph  memorial  by  Ch.  J.  Shea 4^9 

B 

Backbiting  endeavors 236 

Bacon,    Anthony 369,  373 

Badcock    169 

Baldwin,  Rev.  Ashbel 364 

Bampton  lectures 168 

Baptism  through  Apostolic  succession 3  and  note 

Baptismal  record   2 

Baptist  minister    238,  239 

Baptists   44 

Bass,  Bp.  elect  250,  305,  309,  311,  313,  314,  354 

Battery     24 

Beach    16,  17,  18,  19,  21,  374 

Beach's  Sermon   16-22 

Bearcroft 18,  21,  22 

Beardsley,  Preface  and  Passim 

Bearing  of  Jamaica  controversy  on  political  questions 50 

Beaton,  Abp.  of  Glasgow 242 

Bellomont,  Gov 41 

Bell    64,  258 

Benediction  of  Oblation 343 


424  INDEX. 

Beneficiaries    of    Charital)le    Fund 145 

Berkeley,   Dr 200,  225,  229,  230 

Berkeley    Divinity    School 417 

Bernard,    Gov 97,  108 

Bernon,  Gabriel   2 

Berrian,   Rev.  Dr 382 

Betts,  Rev.  B.  R 54 

Bingham    374 

Bishops  associated   in  consecration  co-operators,  not   witnesses.  .  358» 

none  seen  261 

Bishop  of  London 4,  7,  46,  48,  182,  184,  185,  203,  267 

Bishop    Scabury's    dress 361 

in  America,    B.   W.'s  use   for 92 

Bis-sextile    408,  409 

Blackstone  33,    38 

Blair's    sermons    168 

Blind  way  to  rear  room 6 

Blessing  on  the  Elements 344 

Blood  of  Episcopacy  —  where  to  rest 374 

Body  and  Blood 15,  344 

Bolton    140 

Boston    94,  96,  97,  103,  104,  107,  108,  109,  no,  117,  118,  119 

146,  360,  395 

Boston  Divine 90 

Boston  Gazette   109,  289 

Bounds   19,    22 

Boucher,  Rev.  J 167,  168,  254,  258,  262,  265,  368,  2>1^,  2>1Z^  400 

Bours,  John  279 

Bowden,  Dr.  Epitaph  by   410,  414 

Boyhood    3 

Brazil 175 

Bread 14,  15,  341,  343,  344 

Brett,  Bp.,  comparison  Roman  Canon  and  English  Liturgy.  ..  .343,  344 

Bristol     380 

British  Empire    137,  165,  177 

integrity   of    134 

Brooklyn    24,  142 

Brown,    Thomas     97,  98,  loi,  107,  108,  109 

Brownell,  Bp 398 

Brotherly  assistance    305,  306 


INDEX.  425 

Brunswick 11 

Burgon,  Dean  224 

Burhans,  Rev.  Dr 406,  407,  411 

Burial     400 

Burlington    184 

Burnet,  Bp ^2^ 

Burn's  Ecclesiastical  Law 33 

Burrows,    William   Ward    319,  320 

B.  W.  Controversy 89-1 1 1 

B.  W 94,  96,  98,  100,  loi,  102,  105,  106,  107,  109,  no 

C 

Cabinet     i73,  259 

Calverley,  Thos    ,  369 

Campbell,  Bp 246,  247,  252 

Campbell,  Abigail  M.    (Seabury)    389,  403 

Canaan    19 

Canada   i75,  i77 

Candidates    90 

Candor,  manifest  unaccountable  want  of 86 

Canon  Law    36 

Canterbury    168,  185,  186,  203 

204,  214,  215,  216,  217,  218,  225,  229,  230,  236,  237,  263,  275,  277 

Capture  and  transportation  to  New  Haven 140,  141 

Care  in  composition   19 

Carleton,   Sir  Guy 181-190 

Carlisle,    Bp.    of 6 

Carolina 161 

Cartwright,     Bp 222,  223,  249 

Carroll,  Roman  Bp.  of  Baltimore 358 

Case,  John    293 

Catechism   332 

Catechist     1 3",      4 

Catholic  and  Primitive  principles 231,  233 

Caulkins'  Hist.  New  London 2 

Chapel  of  Bp.  Skinner  231,  234 

Chaplain    8,   135,   143,   148,   149,  257,  322,369 

Chance  work  105 

Chancellor    80 


426  iM)i:x. 

Chandler,  Rev.  Dr..  .48,  78,  80,  8j,  84.  86,  114,  ti8,  128,  136,  138,  140,  T45 
167,  172,  174,  177,  178,  180,  206,  214,  255,  262,  288,  372,  376,  381 

Chapman,  Ship   256 

Characteristics  of  Bp.   Scabiiry    392 

Charitable  Corporation   297,  298 

Charitable  donations,  Chandler's  account  of 142-145 

Charles   I ZZ7 

Charles  II   243 

Charter   40,  58,  62,  201,  329 

Charter  House    2T 

Chauncey,    Rev,    Dr 90,  91,    92 

93,  96,  97,  98,   100,   loi,   102,   104,   105,   107,   108,   no,   118,  119 

Christ  our  Sacrifice    14 

Christian   Ballads    364,  365 

Christian  Religion 14,     30 

Christian  Sacrifice   14,  15,  341 

Christ   Church    257,  382 

Christmas    8,  141 

Church    of    England 2,  3,  18,  59,  81,  92,  106 

of  England  in  Jamaica  44 

Churches  in  States,  relation  of  197-198 

Church  of  Christ,  general  laws  of   268 

Church   lands   in   States    269,  270 

Church  Missions  House   418 

Churchman,  editor  of 405 

Cider    11 

City  Hall    160 

Civil  Union  78 

Claggett,   Bp.  of  Maryland   251,  351,  354 

Claggett,  All  Bps.  of  American  consecration  trace  through. ..  .251,  357 

Clamour,  Policy  of 119,  120 

Clergy  of  Connecticut,  letter  to 258 

Clergymen,   widows   and   children   of    298 

Clementine  Liturgy   343 

Clendenin,    Rev.    Dr 74 

Clinton,  Sir  Henry 135 

Clowes,   S.   Jr 48 

Coadjutor  Bp 234,  304,  305 

Coffee  House    160 

Coit,  Rev.  Dr 2 


INDEX.  427 

Coke,  D.    P.,   Commissioner    136 

Coke,    Rev.    Dr Z7S,  Z77 

Colden,  Cadwallader  58 

Colgan,    Rev.    Mr 46,  47,  48 

Colonial   Churchmen,  attitude  toward   Episcopacy   114 

Colonial  Episcopate  78,  81,  1 12-129 

Colonies,  independent  on  each  other  161,  162 

Collation    35 

College  of  Bps.  in  Scotland 234 

Committee  of  Connecticut  Clergy 207 

Committees,  Self  Chosen 158,  160 

Comes    Inn 63 

Commotions     I37 

Communion  Office    11,  326 

Office    Bp.    Seabury's    326,  338 

Offices  Scotch  and  English  Non-jurors 337,  338 

Service    12 

Commemorative  Services  and   Sermons 418,  419 

Common    Prayer    325,  348 

American  Book    325,  326,  338 

Comparison  of  English  and  American  Prayer  of  Consecration.  .340,  341 

Compton,   Bp.  of  London    247 

Conciliatory  Course  of  Bp.  Seabury 301,  303,  304,  306,  307,  308 

Concordat     235,  335,  336 

Conference    of    Committees 322 

Congregational  Watchers   17 

Congress  Canvassed   138,  152,  160 

Connecticut  .  .2,  18,  22,  78,  112,  135,  136,  138,  140,  141,  146,  169,  178 
180,  184,  185,  189,  196,  197,  202,  204,  205,  206,  214,  219,  227,  228 
231,  256,  261,  270,  272,  275,  300,  326,  347 

entire  and  complete   Church 295 

Instructions    223,  224,  225 

Consecration    11 

at    Aberdeen    234,  235,  261,  262 

of  Eucharist   346,  383 

Ignoring  of    249 

Letter   of    235 

no  natural  or  probable  tendency  to  Schism ^73^  374 

Prayer    of    236,  Z32>,  340,  386,  387 

Constantine     :i7Z 


428  INDEX. 

Constituents    298,  299 

Conslitiitidn    ..297,  298,  299,  300,  314,  317,  318,  320,  322,  323,  324,  326 
328,  329 

Constitutional    Establishment   of    Prayer   Book 328,  329 

Constitutional    System    160 

Continuity  of  Episcopate  in  England:  broken  in  Scotland 242 

Continental    Convention    288 

Controversial   writings    131,  132 

Controversy  and  Christian  character 130 

as  to  St.  Matthias  in  Leap  Year 409 

between  Great  Britain  and  Colonies,  View  of  the 139,  152,  160 

Convention  17,  78,  79,  80,  82,  83,  84,  85,  86,  326,  382,  383 

Convention,   General    13,     78 

of  New   York,  Instructions  of 250 

distinguished    from    Convocation 282 

Conventionalities     360,  361 

Cooke,   Rev.   Samuel 174,  186 

Cooper,  Rev.  Dr.  Myles 75,  80,  81,  140,  143,  145,  166,  167,  226,  229 

Rev.    Dr.    Samuel 118 

Cornbury,  Lord    44 

Cosby,    Gov 45,     46 

Country   Districts    160 

Courts    of   Justice 155 

Courteous    Overtures 304 

Court  House,   Services   in 402 

Coxe,  Arthur  Cleveland,  Bp.  W.  N.  Y 364 

Coxe,  Tench 319 

Creatures,  Mark  of  55 

Crete    195 

Culmination  of  career 366 

Cumulative  force  of  remembrance 416 

Cutler,    Rev.     Dr 113 


D. 

Damnatory    Clauses    332 

Danish  Ambassador    215 

Danish    Bishops    215 

Succession     222,  224 

Dawson,    Capt 256 


INDEX.  429 

Deacon's    Orders    4,      6 

Dean    of    Canterbury 369,  2>72> 

Dean    Hoffman    11,  400 

Death    and    Passion 15 

Decline  of  life 366-401 

Degrees     3 

De   Lancey    138,  280 

Delaware    298 

Delaware    Bay    57 

Delegated    Powers    161 

"  Delicacy  in  Speaking  of  Dr.  Seabury  " 237,  238 

Dens  and  caves  of  the  earth 5 

Departure     402-420 

Deputies 298,  321 

Derby    257,  383 

Descent  into  Hell 332 

Dibblee,  Rev.  Dr 382 

Dickinson     152 

Dignity   of   English   Episcopate 237 

Diocese    212 

Conception   of    212,  274 

of  Connecticut,  Completion  of 280 

Diocesan   Catechism  —  Old  New   York 397 

Discipline,  manner  of 382 

Discourses     9,  10,  13,  16,  400,  401 

Dissenters   31,  40,  41,  43,  44,  45,  46,  81,  84,  85,  86,   113,  114,  381 

Dissenting  Clergy,  Knot  of loi 

Dissonance  bet.  Bapt.  and  Conf.  in  Proposed  Book 332 

Divergent  Lines  united  in  Am.  Episc 252 

Divine    7 

Dix,  Rev.  Dr 289 

Dominica    156 

Dongan,   Gov. T^y 

Dowden,  Dr.  John,  Bp.  of  Edinburgh 235,  327,  330,  337,  338,  343 

Downs     255 

Drafts  of  letter  to  S.  P.  G 271-278 

Duane,  Hon.  James   178 

Duche,    Rev.    Dr 255,  256,  257 

Duche,  Thomas   Spence 256,  257 

Dunblane    234 


430  INDEX. 

Durham     3^ 

Dutch  Congregation    44 

E 

Earlc    25?^ 

Early   years   and    Ordination i-7 

East    Chester     75.    7^ 

Eastern    Churches    320,  322,  323,  347 

East   India   Tea 15^ 

Eastern    States     300 

Ecclesiastical   bodies,    Procedings    of 87 

Ecclesiastical   Reverence    87 

Ecclesiastical    Stamp    Act 119 

System     32 

Union     297-324 

Union,  Sense  of  term 297 

Union,  Unit  of  representation  in 292 

Edinburgh 5,  6,  149,  226,  231,  2^2,  254,  260,  262,  308 

University   of    4 

Edcs    &    Gill 98 

Edwards     105 

Edward   Street    138 

Edward    VI 2C3,  333,  334,  2,2>7,  339,  342,  344,  347 

Edward   VII 285 

Election   to    Episcopate 180-198 

Discussion   as   to 191-198 

Bearing    on    j  urisdiction I93-I97 

Elements     13,  IS,  339,  344 

Elizabethtown        82,  136,  288,  37G 

Elphinstone    226 

Elton,  Mrs.  Margaret 255 

Engagements  not  to  consecrate 311 

England     7,  9,  I35,  202 

English  Episcopate,  Limitations  of 222 

English   Episcopal   j  urisdiction 2>2> 

English    Prayer    Book 12,  325,  ZZZ,  32>7 

English    Non-jurors 244 

Engraving  of   Bp.   Seabury 256 

Entry  on  duties  at  Jamaica 49-80M 

Episcopacy     14 


INDEX.  431 

Episcopal    Reverence    84 

Episcopal  Church,  Footing  of  in  Connecticut 227 

Episcopal    Conference  —  Aberdeen    234 

Episcopal  Congregations  and  persons  in  Connecticut 228 

Episcopal  Clergy  in  Connecticut,  Scottish  Bps.  to 235 

Episcopal  functions  in  various  places 289 

Episcopal  plan  turned  into  political  grievance 125 

Episcopal  Palace    393 

Episcoparian    97 

Episcopate,    Length    of 409 

Episcopate,  Relation  of  Scottish  to  English  and  American 241 

Episcopate  to  be  free,  221;  valid,  221;  purely  Ecclesiastical.  ..  .221,  222 

Epigrams  of  Charles  on  John  Wesley 376 . 

Epitaph  by  Dr.   Bowden 410,  411 

on    Obehsk     414,415 

Epsom     167,  368 

Epworth     ZTl,  378 

Equality  of  two  Houses Z'^Z^  3^4 

Erastian   connection    226 

Establishment  of   Prayer   Book 329 

Establishmentarian     222,  238,  249,  278 

Eucharist    11 

Purpose   of    345 

Eucharistic  Article  in  Concordat 335,  336 

Ewer,   Bp.   of  Llandaff 117,  118,  119 

Exceptionable  part  of  English  Pr.  Book,  Comments  of  Bp.  S.  on..  334 

Exigencies    of   history 358 

Ex  officio  membership  of  Bps 300 

Expenses    of    Candidates 90?    9i 

Extemporary   words   in   Liturgical    Practice 337 

Eyre,  Charles    369 

F 

Fairfoul,  Abp.  of  Glasgow 243 

Fairfield    19 

Falconer,  Bp 252 

Family     52,  53,  64,  40^-405 

Fanning,   Col I35 

Farm    51-55 

Farmer,   A.    W 150-170,  132,  140,  I45,  152,  i53,  160,  162,  167 


432 


INDEX. 


Farmers  and  Landowners 138 

Farmer    Tamphlcts    I39,  M^  m6,  151,  i<>6 

Authorship    of 166-170 

Farmer,  refuted    I53 

Fathers    ^^4 

Federal  idea  distinguished 161 

Federal   Union    128 

Festival     days     8 

Fettered   condition    of   English    Bps 259,  260 

Fibbing    159 

Fibs,  tax  on  I59 

Field  of  work 279-296 

Fifty-fifth    year    366 

First  years  of  Ministry 7-22 

Flesh   meat   indeed I5 

Fletcher,    Gov 38,    39 

Flushing     44,  53,  55,  58,  61,  63,  64,  66,    70 

Fogg,    Rev.    D 189,  202,  223 

Foote,    Sir   Isaac 89 

Fowle,   Mr 369 

Fowle,    Rev.    R 395 

Fox     173,  175 

Frampton,   Bp.  of  Gloucester 244 

France     180 

Frederica    378 

Freebody,  Samuel  and  Thomas 385,  387,  388 

Free    Masons    i49 

Free   Thoughts   pamphlet 138,  151,  i53 

Frere,   John    369,  Z7Z 

Freezing   out   policy 260 

Free,  valid  and  purely  Eccl.  Episc 221-240 

Friend   to    America 152,  160 

Fulham     6 

Funeral     409,  411,  412 

Full   Vindication   152 

G 

Gaine's   Gazette    83,  93,  102 

Gaine's    (Hugh)    Quarto  Ordinal 35i 

Gadderar,    Bp 252 


INDEX.  433 

Gardiner,  Benjamin   385,  388 

Gardiner,    Dr.    Sylvester 255 

Gardiner,    Rev.    Walter 292,  293,  294 

Gazette  and  Mercury 89 

Gazette  and  Post  Boy 61,  64,  71,  89,  108,  no,  121 

General   Convention    236 

General    Theological    Seminary 11,  397,  405,  419 

Gentleman    of   figure     94,  96,  104,  105 

Georgia    136,  378 

Germany     84 

Gibson's    Codex     2^ 

Gifts    and    Creatures 344 

Giles :. 57,  79 

Gordon,   Hist.   Am.    Revolution 125 

Gospel  Messenger  279 

Governors'   Quasi    Episcopal  jurisdiction ^y 

Glebe    42 

Glocester     80,    81 

Glasse,  Rev.  Dr 369,  373 

Grace    Church,   Jamaica 31,  46,  48,    51 

Great   Britain    180,  201,  256 

Greek  and  Eastern  Liturgies 343 

Greek  Obedience,   Bps.  of 222 

Grennall,  Thomas    62 

Griffith,    Rev.    Dr 306 

Groton     2 

Gummey,    Rev.    Dr 346,  385 

H 
Habiliments     350 

Haddan's   Apostolic   Succession 358 

Hague     215 

Half  pay   321,  369 

Halifax     190,  255,  256,  279 

Hall,   Hugh    97,  108 

Hall,   Rev.   Peter 327 

Hallam,    Rev.    Dr 402,  406,  410,  412,  414 

Hamilton,  Alexander  139,  152,  153 

Hamilton  and  A.  W.  Farmer,  how  far  agreed 165,  166 

Hamilton,  Bp.   of  Galloway 242,  243 


434  INDEX. 

Hamiltonizcd  aspects  of  American  System 165 

Handwriting    10 

Hanover    5 

Happy   Union    3-i 

Hardy,    Sir    Charles 46,    47 

Harpy    Claws    162 

Harrison,  J 108,  1 10 

Hart,    Rev.    Dr 284,  330,  338,  339,  34^,  343,  348 

Hartford  College   80 

Hastings,  Hugh    37 

Hatton,  Garden    270 

Haven,  Rev.  Mr 126 

Hawks    &    Perry 48,  181,  250 

Health     406,  407 

Hempstead     2,  3,  4,  38,  289,  291,  389 

Heterodoxy     32? 

Hicks     24,  25,  26,  27,  28,    29 

Hicks    Controversy     26-30 

Hickes,  Rev.  Dr.  Geo.,  Non-jnring  Bp 252 

Hindrances  to   Consecration 204 

Historical   Club    285 

Hobart,    Bp I74,  397,  39^ 

Hobart,    Rev.    Dr i74 

Hoffman,  Dean   n,  257 

Hoffman,    Hall    257 

Holiness  of  character  dist.  from  that  of  person 386 

Holt's  Gazette  and  Post  Boy 61,    65 

Holland    84,  247 

Holy  Communion,  Service  for 283 

Holy    Eucharist    355,  402 

Holy  Gifts   341 

Holy  Ghost,  Invocation  of 334,  34i,  342,  344 

Holy  Spirit  and  Word 344 

Hooker  Mr.  J.  C 417 

Hooper,  Rev.  Joseph 83,283,290,361,411 

Hopkins,  Rev.  Dr.  J.  H 131 

Hopkinson,   Francis    3^9 

Home,  Dr.  Geo.,  Dean  of  Canterbury 228,  255,  259 

Horton,    Simon    46 

Hours  spent  with  Bp.  Seabury , 329 


INDEX.  435 

House    of    Bishops 329,  330,  33i,  347,  350 

House  of  Deputies 329,  330,  347,  348 

Howe     147,  148 

Hubbard,    Rev.    Dr 207,  260,  276,  321,  383,  407 

Hudson     401 

Huntington     3 

Huntington,    Gov 286,  287 

I 

Illusions    199-220 

Illusory   hope    135 

Imperialism     178 

Incongruities  of  opposition  to  Episcopate  115 

Incumbent     8 

Independence  of  Colonies  on  each  other 161,  162 

Independence   of   13    States 172 

Indelible  impress  of  Scotch  on  American  Episcopate 252 

Independent     90,  91,  92,  98,  loi 

Independent    teachers     79 

Indian   trade    154 

Induction     35,  36 

Influence  of  Bp.    Seabury's   Theology 397-400 

Inglis,    Rev.    Dr 136,  138,  145,  178,  179,  186,  363,  364,  372,  Z72>,  404 

Initiatory  pamphlet   Z73 

Inscription  on  Altar  tomb  by  Dr.  Jarvis 415,  416 

Institution     35,  36,  341,  343 

American  Office  of 36n 

and  Collation,  Distinction  between 35n 

of  Eucharist    11 

of  Sacrament    12 

Instructions,  Royal,  to  Governors 42 

to  go  to  Scotland 190 

to  N.  Y.  Deputies 302 

Instrument  of  Settlement  in  Jamaica 47,     48 

Instruments  of  Settlement  in  St.  Peters'  W.  C 74,     75 

Insulting   implication    270 

Integral  part  of  Church  Catholic 294 

Interments  under   Church 412,  413 

Intrusion,   Charge  of  considered 289-294 

Invitation  to   Gen.  Conv.  accepted 319 


436  INDEX. 

Inventory  on  administration  of  property  of  intestate 371 

Invocation     341,  342,  343,  347 

Ireland     154 

Irregular  practices    267 

J 

Jamaica  ..  .23,  31,  32,  38,  45,  47,  5 1,  52,  53,  59,  60,  63,  68,  74,  76,  77,  151 

James  1 242 

James   VI 242 

James  II 37,  244 

Jarvis,   Abraham    (Bp.    Conn.) 185,  186,  207,  215,  216,  260 

266,  276,  280,  282,  304,  321,  383,  398 

Jarvis,  Rev.  Dr.   S.   F 414,  415 

Jebb,    Bp 400 

Jews     15 

Johnson,  Rev.  Dr.  Sam'1 78,  113,  114,  128 

Johnson,  Dr.  Wm.  Samuel 141 

Jones    373 

Jones,   Hon.  Thomas 180 

Jordan,   Miss   Mildred 258 

Journal,    Bp.    Seabury's 254,  392,  395,  405,  406,  407,  420 

Judicial  functions    300 

Junius    166 

Jurisdiction,  Abandonment  of  by  English  Bps 295 

Dififerent  views  of  Bp.   Seabury's 287 

Regular  in  Scotland 248 

Twofold   Episcopal    281 

Uneasiness  as  to  extension  of 281 

K 

Ken,  Bp.  Bath  and  Wells 244 

Kick  for  the  Whipper 89 

Kilgour,  Bp.  of  Aberdeen 229,  231,  232,  233,  234 

King's    American    Regiment 135,  143 

King's    Chaplain    369 

King's    College    3,  1 14 

King's   Dispensation    188,  203 

King's   Printer    369 

King  William's  Parliament  in  Scotland 230,  248 

Kirk   of   Scotland 79 


INDEX.  437 

Kissam,   D.    W 389 

Kiss   taxing    i59 

Knox,     Alexander 400 

Knox's  Book  of  Common  Order 337 


Laity,    Assent   of 3^7 

Lake,  Bp,  of  Chichester   244 

Lamb,  Bp.  of  Brechin 242 

Langdon,   Dr 126 

Last  words  of  Bp.  Seabury  in  his  Journal 420 

Laud,  Abp 337 

Law  of  Moses 14 

Lay    Preachers    379,  381 

Lay  representation.   Change  as  to 319,  320 

Leaming,   Rev.    Dr 185,  186,  191,  192,  205  207 

208,  215,  216,  218,  260,  266,  276,  282 

Leap    Year    408,  409 

Legal   processes    i55 

Legalized  Sanctified  Rebels I77 

Legislative  substituted  for  judicial  powers 318 

Leighton,   Bp.  of  Dunblane 243 

Letter  from  Boston  to  lady  in  New  York 360,  361 

Letter  to  Bp.  Provoost 307,  308 

Letter  to  Bp.  Provoost,  extract  from 308 

Letters  of  N.  Y.  and  N.  J.  Convention  to  England 79-88 

Lexington     I53 

Liberty  Paper,  Edes  &  Gill 98 

Liberius     121 

Liberties  of  America 169 

Line  of  Bp.  Seabury  traceable  through  Scotch  and  English  Episc.  .  243 
Lincoln    378 

Bp.  of   6 

Liturgical  traditions  affected  by  loss  of  Episcopate 336,  337 

Liturgical   Work    325 

Liturgies     334,  342,  344 

Liturgy    and    Offices 12,  47,  263,  407 

Litany    8,  407 

Livingston,    Gov.    Wm 89,  114,  118,  120,  121,  136 

Lizzard     255 


438  INDEX. 

Lloyd,   Bp.  of  LlandafT 243 

Lloyd,   Bp.  of  Norwich 244 

London    6,  7,  135,  254,  255,  256,  306 

Bp.    of    4,  168,  172,  201,  203,  213 

Longacre     231 

Long   Island    23,  141,  142 

Lord's    Supper    12 

Lost  Cause    171 

Lovelace,  Gov 44 

Louisiana    i75 

Lowe,  Rev.  John 289 

Loyalists     132,  172,  I73 

Lugubrious    forecast    I77 

M 

MacKean,  Rev.  R 80,    81 

Madison,    Bp 237,  238,  250,  251,  353,  354,  356 

Mahomet    169 

Magaw,   Rev.    Dr 319 

Magdalen  College   224 

Malagrida     I75 

Manning,    Rev.   James 230,  238,  240 

Manor    35 

Mansfield,    Lord    380 

Mansfield,  Rev.  Richard 383 

Manuscripts,  loan  of 201 

Market    crosses    337 

Marriage     25,    26 

Marston,  Nathaniel   27,    28 

Martene     338 

Maryland    80,  81,  162,  167,  236,  298,  339,  347,  354 

Massachusetts    136,  292,  305,  321 

Material   Oblation    34i 

Mather,   Moses    18,     19 

Maxwell,  Bp.  of  Ross 337 

Mayhew,    Rev.   Dr 117 

Mede,  Joseph    14 

Medicine     4 

Mediation   of    Scottish    Episcopate 241-253 


INDEX.  439 

Medical  practice  in  New  York 149 

Medical    Skill    412 

Meerschaum     372 

Memorial  to  Commissioners  of  Treasury 135-144 

to  General  Assembly  of  Connecticut 141 

Memorialist's    inadvertence    139 

Memorials    416-419 

Merchants  of  New  York 138,  152,  160 

Mercy  and  Justice,  laws  hindering 200 

Merry,    258,  403 

Method   of   Study 378 

Methodists     375,  381 

Methodism     377 

Methodist  Society,  Rules  for 379 

Metropolitan    350 

Middletown    185,  266,  282,  417 

Ministry,   British    173 

Misconceptions  of  plea  for  Episcopate 115 

Missal,  Roman   344 

Missionary     16,  17,  19,  21,  23,  24,  31,  32,  47,  62,  63,  75 

82,  151,  167,  175,  185,  187,  189,  268,  269,  270 

Missionaries 19,  21,  33,  48,  79,  no,  228  268,  269,  270,  378 

Mission  in  New  Brunswick 277 

Missionary  Episcopate,  Angl.  Communion 418 

Mississippi     84,     87 

Mitchell,    Rev.    Anthony 337 

Mitre    361-365,  4i5,  4i7 

Mob,  sovereign  lord  the 158 

Molasses    156 

Montague,  Bp.  Bath  and  Wells 242 

Moore,    11,  60,  74,  186,  282,  355,  374,  397 

Moravian  Bps 263,  267 

Morice,   Rev.   Dr 255,  258,  265,  270,  277,  368 

Morley,  Bp.  of  Worcester 243 

Morris,  Ch.  J 45,  46n 

Motheaten   Cloths    155 

Mother  and  daughter  correspondence 390,  391 

Mumford,  Abigail    i 

Thomas     i 


440  INDEX. 

N 

Narragansett    290,  292 

Nassau    Island    23,  48,     59 

Necessity  —  Supposition    groundless    264,  267 

Nettles     237 

New  Brunswick 9,  11,  16,  17,  23,  25,  31,  47,  132,  136,  145,  151,  297 

Newcastle,  Duke  of 45 

New    Hampshire    126,  190,  305,  321,  395 

New  Haven    141,  167,  207,  287 

New  Jersey 9,  48,  63,  78,  80,  81,  112,  1 18,  136,  162,  297,  298 

New  London i,  2,  3,  146,  261,  270,  279,  280 

364,  370,  382,  402,  406,  407,  420 

New   Milford    384 

Newport     82,  279,  289,  294,  384,  385 

New  Rochelle   76 

Newtown 11,  24,  44,  46,  48,  55,  60,  62,  64,  76 

New   York   3,  24,  2)1,  65,  71,  78,  80,  81,  85,  98,  99 

TOO,  103,  112,  132,  133,  136,  137,  138,  141,  146,  149,  153,  154,  161, 

162,  185,  197,  202,  261,  266,  279,  297,  298,  370,  381 

Nevin,  Rev.  Dr 417 

Nicene  Creed    331 

Nickname  of   Methodist 378 

Nicol,  Mrs.  Matthias 405 

Norn   de  plume 89,  152 

Non-importation  and  exportation 138,  153 

Non-j  urors     5 

Distinction  bet.  English  and  Scotch 246,  248,  249 

regarded  as  schismatical  in  England 245 

Non-juring   Bps 237,  239,  240,  244,  245 

Succession  —  English     222 

Non-jurors  Book    342,  343 

Non  possumus  of  Bps.,  King  &  S.  P.  G 200,  201 

Nonsensical   objection    311 

Norfolk   405 

Norman,   Wm.    E 401 

North,  Lord   147,  159,  205,  214 

Northites    and    Foxites 176 

Norton  Street  255 

Norwich     382,  383,  410 

Nova  Scotia    189,  206,  214 


INDEX.  441 

O 

Oaths,   Inability  to  take 265 

Obadiah     22 

Objections    not   personal 202,  203 

Statement    of 204,  211,  217 

Oblation     34i,  343,  344 

Oblatory  words    347 

Obligation  to  English  Consecrators 250 

Offering     341 

Offer  to   Consecrate  Elements 13 

Oglethorpe     27^ 

Oliver,  Rev.  Thomas  Fitch i39 

Onderdonk,   Henry,  Jr 31,  44,  45,  46,  47,  48,  54 

Open    Questions    i33,  I79 

Order  of  Institution,  Oblation  and  Invocation 343 

Am.  Prayer  Agreeable  to  Primitive  Custom 343 

Orders,  Valid  Succession  of  Scotch 248 

Ordinary    8,    2^ 

Ordination,  First  282 

Separation 380 

Organization,   Two    Processes   of 295 

Osborne,   Geo.   Jerry   395 

Osborne's    Paper    395 

Otis    117 

Lucretia     404 

Outlawry  of  American  Freedom 156,  157, 

Overwhelming    Minorities    160 

Owen,   Rev.   John 2 

Oxford     80,  81,  143,  213,  224,  225,  378,  398 

Degree     136 

Hood     361 

Street    144 

P 

Packet,  N.  Y 289 

Palace     \ 3,  393 

Papacy     195 

Papers  and  Essays  agst.  Government 136 

Parker,    James    94,  95,  96,  99,  105,  106,  108,  no 

Rev.  Henry  A Preface,  and  255 

Rev.    Samuel    '. 189,  282,  309,  313,  339 


442  INDEX. 

Parliament    36,    79 

Parochial   Districts,   Origin  of 32 

Parlour  of   Parsonage 402 

Partakers,  that  we  may  be 338 

Particular  Business  of  Bps 328 

Partisanship     162 

Paschal   Supper    34^ 

Pastoral   Letter    283 

Pastoral    Life     412 

Pastoral    Spirit    390 

Paths  Open  and  Course  Pursued 220 

Patron     35 

Pennsylvania     197,  297,  298 

Pension    135,  167 

Pensioner  on  Divine  Providence 264,  369 

Percival     184,  243,  244 

Perpetuity     287 

Perry,  Bp 26,  54,  188,  189,  191,  192 

Per  Saltum   243 

Persecutions  of  Scottish  Clergy 230,  231 

Personal  Appearance   406 

Person,  Singular  or  Plural  of  First 285 

Peter  Parley   393 

Petrie,    Bp 232,  233,  234 

Petrified   Christianity   365 

Philadelphia     119,  138,  152,  161,  162,  236,  256 

257,  267,  288,  298,  331,  348,  381 

Philadelphia  Plan  for  Episcopate 188 

Pickwickian    Sense 102 

Pilmore,  Rev.  Mr 375,  381 

Plot  for  Enslavement  of  Colonies 126,  127 

Policy,   Instances   of   Bad 264 

Policy  of  Bp.  White 312,  313 

Political  Aspects  of  Episcopal  Question 116 

Experiences    130-149 

Position   132 

Questions,  Considerations  as  to 132-134 

Saint    175 

Politicians,  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical 199 

Pomf ret   190 


INDEX.  443 

Popery    333 

Portraits  of  Bp.  Seabury 256,  257,  258 

Portland,  Duke  of 205 

Portsmouth    126,  289,  395 

Portugal 175,  184 

Poverty    262 

Powell,  Adam 2 

Elizabeth  2 

Power   299,  328 

Powers,  Purely  Ecclesiastical 267 

Poyer,   Rev.   Thomas 45 

Poyntz,  Rev.  Dr 369 

Praemunire 219 

Prayer   Book 12,  283,  300,  306,  315,  333,  343 

of  1549  Follows  Roman  Order 343 

Prayer  of  Consecration 16,  236,  331,  338,  339 

Precipitancy,  Implication  in   Charge   of 259 

Precipitate    238,  259 

Prej  udice  Promoted  by  English  Bps 238 

of  English  Bps.  Short  Sighted 252 

Prelacy   85,  183 

Prerogative    349-365 

Presbyterians    45,  79,  136,  169,  247,  248,  381 

Presbyterian   Judicatories 230 

Presentation    34,  35 

Presidency  of  House  of  Bps 350,  351,  353 

Bp.  White's  Account  of 352 

Extracts  from  Journal  of  House  of  Bps.  as  to 352,  353 

Extract  from  Journal  of  Bp.  Seabury   as  to 353,  354 

Transfer  to  Bp.  Provoost,  Bp.  White's  Account  of 354-356 

President  of  House  of  Bps 351,  352 

Presiding    Bp 350,  351,  352 

Sense  of  Term ;  Prerogatives  of 351 

Presiding    Officer 350 

Pretender   5,  237 

Price,  Bp 222,  223 

Priests'    Orders 4,  6 

Primacy    349 

Primate    350 

Primus    350 


444  INDEX. 

Prophecy   331 

Proposals  for  Episcopate,  Cutler  et  al 113,  114 

Proposed   Prayer  Book 326-328,  333,  339 

Comments  of  Bp.   Seabury  on 328,  331,  332,  333 

Proprieties,  Observation  of  the 255 

Protestant   Episcopal    Church 14 

Protestant  Minister,  Good   Sufficient 38,  40,  45 

Providence,   College  of 239 

Humble  Pensioner  of 264,  269 

Province 9,  78,  81,  104,  133,  154,  160,  161,  180,  245 

Provinces     17,  246 

Provincial   Congress    141 

Provincial  Establishment 37 

Provincial   Hospital 143,  148 

Provincial   Missionaries 18 

Provoost,  Bp.  of  N.  Y 237,  250,  290,  291,  299,  301 

302,  305,  306,  307,  309,  310,  312,  313,  314,  318,  329,  351,  352,  353 

354,  356,  358,  381,  382,  397- 

Psalms,  Mutilation  of   331 

Psalter   333 

Public  Opinion  157 

Punnical  Memory   169 

Puritan   Interest    182 

Puritans    2 

Pyramid  on  Head 361 

Q 

Quakers   25,  44,  55,  56 

Quebec   154 

Queens 38,  48,  53 

Questions   before    Electors 181-183 

Quorum  of  First  House  of  Bps 329 

R 

Raritan 24 

Ratification  299 

Rationale  American  Pr.  of  Consecration 341,  342 

Real  Primitive  Bp 380 

Reasons  against  Separation 379 

Rebels  of  East  and  West  Chester 148 

Legalized  Sanctified    177 


INDEX.  445 

Reception  as  Bp.  of  Connecticut 280,  282 

Recommendations     298,  299,  37;^ 

Record  on  Tomb 415 

Redeemer    14 

Redemption    14 

Reformation :    Rebellion :    Revolution 244 

Regeneration    331 

Regularity   306 

Reinterment,   Account   of 412-414 

Relations  bet.  Provoost  and  Seabury,  Bp.  White's  Account  of.  .358-360 

Remains,   Observations   on 414 

Remnant  of  Old  Scotch  Line 242 

Representation   of  Abps.   agst.   Art.   VIII 317 

Representative  Consent,  Discussion  as  to 162-165 

Residence   in   Jamaica 51-73 

Residence  in  St.  James  Parsonage 370,  402 

Resolutions 301,  312,  313,  314 

Restoration  of  Episcopate  in  Scotland 242,  243 

Restrictions    306 

Result  of  all  the  Waiting 220 

Revision,  House  of 323 

Revolution  of  Worship  of  God 345 

Rhode  Island   8,  82,  279,  292 

Church  under  Jurisdiction  of  Bp.   S 293 

Richmond   38 

Ricketts   : 25 

Legacies    of 27 

Riker's   Annals    of    Newtown 31 

Rivington,    James 146,  153,  369,  370,  382,  400 

Rivington's    Gazette    138 

Robust   Constitution    406 

Rockingham,  Lord 173 

Rodgers,  Rev.  Mr 85,  96,  97,  99 

.  Rogers'  Account  of  Funeral 411,  412 

Roman  Canon  343,  344,  346 

Roman   Error  and    Catholic   Usage 345 

Roman  Liturgy  Compared  with  English 343 

Roman   Logic    358 

Roman  Modes  of  Rendering  American  Pr.  of  Consecration 345 

Roman  Obedience,   Bps.   of 222 


446  Index. 

Romantic  Possibilities   5 

Rose,    Bp.    Ciiarles 234,  235 

Rose,  Bp.  of  Edinburgh,  Interview  with  William 246 

Ross  and  Moray 233 

Rotation    353,  356 

Routh,  Dr.  Martin 224 

Royalists    132 

Royal    Succession,    Resettlement    of 244 

Russell's  Paper  395 

Rye  140 

S 

Sacrament  of  Lord's   Supper 12,  14,  15 

Sacrifice    I4,  IS,  34i,  342,  345 

Sacrifice  as  Act  of  Worship,  dist.  from  Sacrifice  as  Object  of  Wor- 
ship     345 

Sacrificial  Character   12 

Sacrificial   Ofifering    345 

Saltonstall,  Ann   404 

Roswell    404,  406,  407,  413 

Samuel   of   Connecticut 362 

Samuel,   Superscription  and   Signature 283,  284 

Sancroft,  Abp.   Canterbury 245,  252 

Succession   222,  244 

Savannah    378 

Sayre,  Rev.  James 384,  385,  386,  387 

Savior    15 

"  Schismatical  Church  of  England  " 235 

Scotch  Services  since   1755 342,  343 

Society    104 

Succession    217,  224,  240 

Scotland 13,  119,  201,  202,  223,  224,  22^^,  228,  232 

•  • 236,  238,  247,  255,  259,  261,  305,  336 

Scottish  Episcopal  Church 5,  12,  13,  222,  223 

Bps 14,  224,  225,  226,  229,  230,  234,  235 

236,  238,  247,  250,  335,  343,  380 

Communion  Office    336,  339 

Consecration,    Influence    to    Seek 223,  224 

Episcopate,  Confusion  of  Mind  as  to 240 


INDEX.  447 

Scottish  Formularies,  Historical  Account  of 336,  338 

Line   222,  312 

Prayer  Book  ^^y 

Seabury,  Adam    2,  389 

Caleb    I 

Rev.    Charles 7,  364,  384,  393,  404,  406,  413 

Charles  Saltonstall,  and  Sons  of 404 

Colonial   Line   of 2 

Communion  Office   343 

David    2,  389 

Edward    258,  393,  404,  406 

Edward,  Son  of  Charles   404 

Elizabeth    Powell    2,  389 

Jane    2 

Maria     393,  403,  405 

Nathaniel    2 

Richard  Francis,  and  Sons  of 404 

Rev.   Samuel,    M.   A i,  3,  402 

Samuel,  M.  D 404,  406 

Rev.  Dr.  Samuel 2,  10,  14,  280,  404,  409,  Son  of  405 

Hon.   Samuel    372,  405 

William    (Son  of  Charles) 404 

William    Marston    405 

S-b-r-y,  Mr 92,  108 

S-b-y,  Mr loi,  102 

Sears    153 

Seeker,  Abp 117,  128 

Sedg-wick,  Theodore   115,  118,  120 

Seeing  Double,  Literary  Instance  of 139 

Sending  a  Bishop,  Questions  as  to 272,  276 

Senior  Consecration   350 

Sentiments  as  to  Consecr.  Ench.  not  New,  but  Emphasized 335,  336 

Sermon,   Bp's  First  on  Landing 279 

Sermons     3,  9,  395,  400 

Setauket    364 

Seven  States,   Representatives  from 298 

Sexton    8 

Seymour,  George  Dudley 258 

Sharp,  Gov.  Horatio 80 


448  INDEX. 

Sharp,  Granville 230,  236,  237,  240 

John,  Abp.   York 236 

Abp.  St.  Andrew's 243 

William,   Engraver    256 

Shea,  Ch.  J i39,  152,  293,  4^9 

Shelburn,  Lord    I73,  I75 

Sheldon,  Bp.  of  London 243 

Sherlock,  Wm 48 

Sherlock,   Thomas,    Bp.    of   London 6 

Dean  William  7 

Sign  of  the  Cross 333 

Skipper    24 

Skinner,   Bp.    Coadj.    Aberdeen 225,  229,  230,  231,  234,  255,  304,  305 

Skinner's    Ecclesiastical    Hist.    Scotland 242,  243 

Slate   and    Pencil 10 

Small  Ale  to  his  Pipe 371 

Smith,   Attorney  Thomas 95,  96,  105 

Rev.  Dr.  Robert 301,  302 

Rev.  Dr.  William 236,  280,  302,  304,  313,  315 

318,  319,  339,  347,  348,  359,  375- 

Rev.  William   386,  388 

Account  of    385" 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 3,  9,  16,  18,  19 

21,  31,  33,  63,  64,  75,  78,  79,  80,  81,  90,  91,  92,  94,  96,  97,  100 
105,  106,  108,  109,  no,  133,  146,  148,  167,  200,  201,  228,  258,  268 
,269,  270,  368,  402. 

Society's  List,  to  be  Dropped  from 262 

South,    Rev.    Dr 7 

South    Carolina 298 

South  Groton         2 

Specimen  MS.  Sermon 11 

Spottiswood,  Abp.  Glasgow 242 

Sprague's    Annals    44 

Stamford    18,  22 

Staten  Island   24,  148 

Stamp  Act   122 

Standards  of  Antiquity  336 

Stanley,  Dean   365 

State,  Free,  Sovereign  and  Independent 283 

States  of  Civil  Union 300 


INDEX.  449 

State    Oaths    203,  207,  213 

Stephen's  Hist.  Church  of  Scotland 243,  247 

Account  of  Bp.  Hamilton 371,  372 

Second    Liturgy    342 

Sterne,  Bp.  of  Carlisle 243 

Stevens,    Wm 306,  368,  369,  373 

Stewart,  Elizabeth  404 

Mathew 413 

Stiles,  Dr.  Ezra 82,  84,  85,  86,  87,  1 12,  121,  127,  362 

Stipend    , 3 

Stipends,   Plea  for  Continuance  of  to  Missionaries 268 

Stone   Church    45 

Stone,   Maker   of   Mitre 363 

Stout,   Commander    261 

Straightened  Means 367 

Stuart   Succession    5 

Style    7,  10 

St.  Clair,  Sir  John 174 

St.  Andrew's  Day 408 

Andrew's,  Aberdeen    417 

George's,  Hempstead    25,  74,  289 

James,  New  London i,  3,  370,  384,  389,  402,  406,  412,  413 

John's  Church,  Portsmouth 395 

Lawrence    154 

Matthias'   Day    408,  409 

Paul's  Cathedral  419 

Paul's  Church,  Rome,  Memorial  Window  in 417,  418 

Peter's,  West  Chester  Rectorate 74-88 

Success,    Probability   against 205 

Sudden  Death  407 

Suffolk  Resolves 138 

Sulky,  Horse  and  Harness 393 

Superintendents  242,  248 

Supervisors    157,  158,  161 

Support   for  a  Bishop 206,  212,  213 

Surplice  of  Bp.  Seabury 417 

Swearing    158 

Sweden    84 

Swedish   Bps 267 

Swords,  T.  &  J 400,  401 


450  INDEX. 

Sydserf,   Bp 243 

Symbolical   Oblation    341 

Symbolizing  with  Rome    334 

Symbols    15 

Synod    79,  87,  136,  350 

T 

Taber,  Frances  404 

Talbot    184 

Taxation  and  Representation   (or  Legislation  ? ) 162 

Taylor,   Charles   Nicol 258,  403,  405 

Taylor,   Mrs.    Charles    Nicol 389,403,405 

Temple,    John    97,  109,  1 10 

Testimonials  of   Bp.   Elect 185-187 

Thames    River    2 

Theological  Position  11 

Studies    4 

Thirty   Years'   Correspondence 400 

Thomas,   Bp.   of  Worcester 244 

Thomas  &  Andrews,  Printers 395 

Tickle,    Esq.,    Timothy 89,  151 

Tillotson,    Abp 14,  245,  327 

Timothy,    St.    Paul's    Instructions    to 361 

not  Apparent  in  Congregational  Horizon 362 

Titular  Bps 242,  248 

Torchlight  Interment   413 

Tories    86 

Townsend   218 

Town  Hall  46 

Tractarian   Movement    398-406 

Transition   Period    23-30 

Translation  of  Inscription  of  Dr.  Jarvis 416 

Transmission  of  Succession 356 

Transubstantiation   334 

Treasury,  Commissioners   of 135 

Treaty   of    Peace 172-180 

Tredwell,  Dr.  Benjamin  2,  61,  62,  63,  64 

Miss  Elizabeth    389 

John   403 

Trenton   63 


INDEX.  451 

Trinity    7,  332 

Trinity    College    257 

Trinity,    Newport    279 

New    York    289,  381,  382,  413 

Triumph,  Ship  261,  279 

Tryon,  Gov 149 

Turner,   Bp.   of  Ely 244 

Twofold  Object  of  Sermons 12 

Twofold  Theme   325 

Tyler,    Rev.    Dr 382,  383,  384,  413 

U 

Umbrage    of    English    Bishops 237,  238 

Underlings    309 

Understanding  as  to  Extension  of  Am.  Episc 250 

Union,  Attitude  of  Bp.  Seabury  Toward 301,  304,  306,  307 

308,  309,  310,  311,  315. 

of  Divergent  Lines  in  American  Episcopate 252 

and   Unity    310 

United  Convention  N.  Y.  and  N.  J 78,  79 

University   of   Edinburgh 4 

Unmitred   Church    83 

Upj  ohn,  Richard    413 

Urquhart  44 

Utica    279 

V 

Vae  Vietis   171-179 

Variance  bet.  two  Houses  as  to  Action  on  Pr.  Book 330 

Variations  bet.  English  and  American  Books ;^2>7 

bet.  Scotch  and  English  Books 337 

Vermont    205,  269 

Vestries,  Under  Law  of  1693 38 

View  of  the   Controversy 139,  152,  160,  162,  165,  167 

View  of  Causes  and  Consequences  Am.  Revolution 167 

Vigorous  Resentment  Attributed  to  Bp.  Seabury 289,  292,  293 

Violetta  Ricketts   (Seabury)  Taylor 258 

Virginia    161,  197,  250,  289,  298,  306,  2>72„  405 

Virgin  Preacher  9 

Voluntary  Contributions   from  England 368 


452  INDEX. 

W 

Wallingford     3^3 

Walton    25 

Wardour   Street   205 

Washington  College    236 

Watch  Tower   136 

Wedderburn,  Bp.  of  Dunblane 337 

Wells,  Noah   18,  19,  20,  22 

Welton    184 

Wentworth,    Benning 95,  96,  97,  99,  100,  101,  105,  106,  107 

Wesley,   Rev.   Charles 375,  377 

Epigrams    on   John 376 

Letter  to  Chandler    376-381 

Rev.   John    377 

Rev.    Samuel    3/8,379 

West,  Benj  amin   256 

West    Chester    38,  107,  no,  136,  137,  138,  140,  142,  147,  151 

Western  New  York 280 

West   Indies    154,  156 

Westminster   Abbey    243 

School    377 

Wetmore,  Commissary  17 

Whip   for   the  American   Whig 89,  90,  93,  94,  151 

White,  Wm.  Bp.  Penn 13,  188,  237,  238,  250,  251,  256,  257,  297 

298,  299,  302,  305,  306,  307,  309,  310,  313,  314,  315,  319,  322,  328 
329,  330,  331,  335,  346,  347,  351,  352,  353,  354,  374,  377,  393, 

White's  Mahometanism    168 

White,  Bp.  of  Peterborough 244 

Whitefield    56,  126 

White    Plains    I37 

Whittingham,  Bp.  of  Maryland 397 

Whosoever,  Changed  to  We  and  all  Others 339 

Wickford    292 

Wickham,  Thomas    294 

Wife  of  Bp.  Seabury,  Tradition  as  to 25,  26 

Wilkins,  Isaac   137,  140,  166,  403 

Wilkins  Mansion,  Refuge  in 140 

William   &    Mary • 5,  244 

William  III 246,  252 

Wilmot,   J.,   Commissioner 136 


INDEX.  453 

Wilson    57,  79 

Wine   14,  I5,  34i,  344 

Wisdom  Justified  of  all  Her  Children 365 

Withdrawal   of    Stipend 367,  369 

Woodbridge  407 

Woodbury    I5S,  188,  189,  191,  202,  418 

Word   344 

Workmanship  of  the  Prayer  Book 3^7 

Worship  of  God  by  Sacrifice,  dist.  from  Worship  of  Sacrifice 345 

Wounds  and  Bruises 373 

Writings  of  Bp.  Seabury 393-40I 

Wyllys,   Secretary    260 

Y 

Yale  College   i,  3,  82,  258,  362 

Yewell   257 

York    185,  192,  203,  204,  213,  214,  216,  225 

York  Papers   98 


DUE  DATE 


957.73 
Sel3 


COLUMBIA 


4- 

O 


Kittle  do  not 

PHOTOCOPY 


rO  OJ  ij 


